Text

Kld TR-535, Final Report, Rev. 1, Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station Development of Evacuation Time Estimates.
	ML12363A207
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	12/31/2012
From:	; KLD Engineering, PC
To:	; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Omaha Public Power District
Shared Package
ML123630334	List: LIC-12-0185, Kld TR-535, Final Report, Rev. 1, Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station Development of Evacuation Time Estimates.; ML12363A184;
References
	LIC-12-0185 KLD TR-535, Rev 1
	Download: ML12363A207 (420)
	v • d • e

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station Development of Evacuation Time Estimates Work performed for Omaha Public Power District, by:

KLD Engineering, P.C.

43 Corporate Drive Hauppauge, NY 11788 mailto:kweinisch@kldcompanies.com December 2012 Final Report, Rev. 1 KLD TR - 535

Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 11 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process...................................................................................................... 11 1.2 The Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station Location ............................................................................... 13 1.3 Preliminary Activities ................................................................................................................. 15 1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study .............................................................................................. 19 2 STUDY ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS............................................................................................. 21 2.1 Data Estimates ........................................................................................................................... 21 2.2 Study Methodological Assumptions .......................................................................................... 22 2.3 Study Assumptions ..................................................................................................................... 26 3 DEMAND ESTIMATION ....................................................................................................................... 31 3.1 Permanent Residents ................................................................................................................. 32 3.2 Shadow Population .................................................................................................................... 37 3.3 Transient Population ................................................................................................................ 310 3.4 Employees ................................................................................................................................ 314 3.5 Medical Facilities ...................................................................................................................... 318 3.6 Total Demand in Addition to Permanent Population .............................................................. 318 3.7 Special Event ............................................................................................................................ 318 3.8 Summary of Demand ............................................................................................................... 320 4 ESTIMATION OF HIGHWAY CAPACITY................................................................................................ 41 4.1 Capacity Estimations on Approaches to Intersections .............................................................. 42 4.2 Capacity Estimation along Sections of Highway ........................................................................ 44 4.3 Application to the FCNS Study Area ........................................................................................... 46 4.3.1 TwoLane Roads ................................................................................................................. 46 4.3.2 MultiLane Highway ........................................................................................................... 46 4.3.3 Freeways ............................................................................................................................ 47 4.3.4 Intersections ...................................................................................................................... 48 4.4 Simulation and Capacity Estimation .......................................................................................... 48 5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME .......................................................................................... 51 5.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 51 5.2 Fundamental Considerations ..................................................................................................... 53 5.3 Estimated Time Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5 ................................................... 56 5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Time Distribution .................................................................... 512 5.4.1 Statistical Outliers ............................................................................................................ 513 5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation ................................................................................. 516 5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational Areas ................................................. 518 6 DEMAND ESTIMATION FOR EVACUATION SCENARIOS ..................................................................... 61 7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES (ETE) .......................................................... 71 7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation ......................................................................... 71 7.2 Staged Evacuation ...................................................................................................................... 71 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station i KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation ..................................................................... 72 7.4 Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Results .................................................................................... 73 7.5 Staged Evacuation Results ......................................................................................................... 74 7.6 Guidance on Using ETE Tables ................................................................................................... 75 7.7 ETE Reported for other Areas .................................................................................................... 77 8 TRANSITDEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES ................................. 81 8.1 Transit Dependent People Demand Estimate ............................................................................ 82 8.2 School Population - Transit Demand ......................................................................................... 84 8.3 Medical Facility Demand ............................................................................................................ 84 8.4 Evacuation Time Estimates for Transit Dependent People ....................................................... 85 8.5 Special Needs Population......................................................................................................... 811 8.6 Correctional Facilities ............................................................................................................... 812 9 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ................................................................................................... 91 10 EVACUATION ROUTES .................................................................................................................. 101 11 SURVEILLANCE OF EVACUATION OPERATIONS ........................................................................... 111 12 CONFIRMATION TIME .................................................................................................................. 121 13 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................... 131 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station ii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

List of Appendices A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERMS .................................................................................. A1 B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL ......................................................... B1 C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIMULATION MODEL ............................................................................................... C1 C.1 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. C5 C.1.1 The Fundamental Diagram ................................................................................................. C5 C.1.2 The Simulation Model ........................................................................................................ C5 C.1.3 Lane Assignment .............................................................................................................. C12 C.2 Implementation ....................................................................................................................... C12 C.2.1 Computational Procedure ................................................................................................ C12 C.2.2 Interfacing with Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTRAD) ................................................... C15 D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE .............................................................................. D1 E. SPECIAL FACILITY DATA ...................................................................................................................... E1 F. TELEPHONE SURVEY ........................................................................................................................... F1 F.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... F1 F.2 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan ....................................................................................... F2 F.3 Survey Results ............................................................................................................................ F3 F.3.1 Household Demographic Results ........................................................................................... F3 F.3.2 Evacuation Response ............................................................................................................. F8 F.3.3 Time Distribution Results ..................................................................................................... F10 F.4 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. F13 G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN .......................................................................................................... G1 G.1 Traffic Control Points ................................................................................................................ G1 G.2 Access Control Points ................................................................................................................ G1 H EVACUATION REGIONS ..................................................................................................................... H1 J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM ..................................... J1 K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK .................................................................................................. K1 L. SUB AREA BOUNDARIES ..................................................................................................................... L1 M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES ............................................................................................. M1 M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times ............................................................................ M1 M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate ................. M2 M.3 Effect of Changes in EPZ Resident Population ......................................................................... M3 N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST ................................................................................................................... N1 Note: Appendix I intentionally skipped Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station iii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

List of Figures Figure 11. FCNS Location ......................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 12. FCNS LinkNode Analysis Network .......................................................................................... 17 Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ....................................................................................... 25 Figure 31. FCNS EPZ ................................................................................................................................. 33 Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector ............................................................................. 35 Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................. 36 Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector ................................................................................................. 38 Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector ..................................................................................................... 39 Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector............................................................................................. 312 Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................. 313 Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector ............................................................................................ 316 Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................ 317 Figure 41. Fundamental Diagrams ............................................................................................................ 49 Figure 51. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip .............................................................. 55 Figure 52. Evacuation Mobilization Activities ........................................................................................ 511 Figure 53. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution....................................................... 515 Figure 54. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions....................................................................... 520 Figure 55. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5 Mile Region .......................................................................................................................... 522 Figure 61. FCNS EPZ Sub Areas ................................................................................................................ 64 Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ..................................................................................... 717 Figure 72. FCNS Shadow Region ............................................................................................................ 718 Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate .................................... 719 Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the Advisory to Evacuate ............................................ 720 Figure 75. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour, 45 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate........................ 721 Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate .......................................... 722 Figure 77. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 1 for Region R03 ...................................................... 723 Figure 78. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 2 for Region R03 ...................................................... 723 Figure 79. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 3 for Region R03 ...................................................... 724 Figure 710. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 4 for Region R03 .................................................... 724 Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 5 for Region R03 .................................................... 725 Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 6 for Region R03 .................................................... 725 Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 7 for Region R03 .................................................... 726 Figure 714. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 8 for Region R03 .................................................... 726 Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 9 for Region R03 .................................................... 727 Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 10 for Region R03 .................................................. 727 Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 11 for Region R03 .................................................. 728 Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 12 for Region R03 .................................................. 728 Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 13 for Region R03 .................................................. 729 Figure 720. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 14 for Region R03 .................................................. 729 Figure 81. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations ...................................................................... 813 Figure 82. TransitDependent Bus Routes ............................................................................................. 814 Figure 101. Registration Centers and Host Facilities ............................................................................. 102 Figure 102. Evacuation Route Map ........................................................................................................ 103 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station iv KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure B1. Flow Diagram of SimulationDTRAD Interface........................................................................ B5 Figure C1. Representative Analysis Network ........................................................................................... C4 Figure C2. Fundamental Diagrams ........................................................................................................... C6 Figure C3. A UNIT Problem Configuration with t1 > 0 .............................................................................. C6 Figure C4. Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C3) .................................................... C14 Figure D1. Flow Diagram of Activities ..................................................................................................... D5 Figure E1. Schools within the EPZ ............................................................................................................ E7 Figure E2. Medical Facilities within the EPZ ............................................................................................ E8 Figure E3. Major Employers within the EPZ.............................................................................................. E9 Figure E4. Recreational Areas within the EPZ ........................................................................................ E10 Figure E5. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ ........................................................................................... E11 Figure E6. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ ................................................................................... E12 Figure F1. Household Size in the EPZ ....................................................................................................... F3 Figure F2. Household Vehicle Availability ................................................................................................ F4 Figure F3. Vehicle Availability 1 to 5 Person Households ...................................................................... F5 Figure F4. Vehicle Availability 6 to 9+ Person Households .................................................................... F5 Figure F5. Household Ridesharing Preference......................................................................................... F6 Figure F6. Commuters in Households in the EPZ ..................................................................................... F7 Figure F7. Modes of Travel in the EPZ ..................................................................................................... F8 Figure F8. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation ............................................................................... F9 Figure F9. Households Evacuating with Pets ........................................................................................... F9 Figure F10. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/School .............................................................. F11 Figure F11. Work to Home Travel Time ................................................................................................. F11 Figure F12. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation................................................................................ F12 Figure F13. Time to Clear Driveway of 6"8" of Snow ........................................................................... F13 Figure G1. Traffic and Access Control Points for FCNS ........................................................................... G2 Figure H1. Region R01 ............................................................................................................................. H4 Figure H2. Region R02 ............................................................................................................................. H5 Figure H3. Region R03 ............................................................................................................................. H6 Figure H4. Region R04 ............................................................................................................................. H7 Figure H5. Region R05 ............................................................................................................................. H8 Figure H6. Region R06 ............................................................................................................................. H9 Figure H7. Region R07 ........................................................................................................................... H10 Figure H8. Region R08 ........................................................................................................................... H11 Figure H9. Region R09 ........................................................................................................................... H12 Figure H10. Region R10 ......................................................................................................................... H13 Figure H11 Region R11 .......................................................................................................................... H14 Figure H12 Region R12 .......................................................................................................................... H15 Figure H13 Region R13 .......................................................................................................................... H16 Figure H14 Region R14 .......................................................................................................................... H17 Figure H15 Region R15 .......................................................................................................................... H18 Figure H16 Region R16 .......................................................................................................................... H19 Figure H17 Region R17 .......................................................................................................................... H20 Figure H18 Region R18 .......................................................................................................................... H21 Figure H19 Region R19 .......................................................................................................................... H22 Figure H20 Region R20 .......................................................................................................................... H23 Figure H21 Region R21 .......................................................................................................................... H24 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station v KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H22 Region R22 .......................................................................................................................... H25 Figure H23 Region R23 .......................................................................................................................... H26 Figure H24 Region R24 .......................................................................................................................... H27 Figure H25 Region R25 .......................................................................................................................... H28 Figure H26 Region R26 .......................................................................................................................... H29 Figure H27 Region R27 .......................................................................................................................... H30 Figure H28 Region R28 .......................................................................................................................... H31 Figure H29 Region R29 .......................................................................................................................... H32 Figure H30 Region R30 .......................................................................................................................... H33 Figure H31 Region R31 .......................................................................................................................... H34 Figure H32 Region R32 .......................................................................................................................... H35 Figure H33 Region R33 .......................................................................................................................... H36 Figure H34 Region R34 .......................................................................................................................... H37 Figure H35 Region R35 .......................................................................................................................... H38 Figure H36 Region R36 .......................................................................................................................... H39 Figure H37 Region R37 .......................................................................................................................... H40 Figure J1. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1) .............. J9 Figure J2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2) ............................... J9 Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3)............ J10 Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4) ............................ J10 Figure J5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5) ..................................................................................................................... J11 Figure J6. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6) .............. J11 Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7) ............................... J12 Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario 8) ............................. J12 Figure J9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9) .............. J13 Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10) ........................... J13 Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario 11) ......................... J14 Figure J12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12) ................................................................................................................... J14 Figure J13. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13) ...................................................................................................................... J15 Figure J14. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14) ................................................................................................................ J15 Figure K1. Fort Calhoun LinkNode Analysis Network .............................................................................. K2 Figure K2. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 1 ..................................................................................... K3 Figure K3. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 2 ..................................................................................... K4 Figure K4. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 3 ..................................................................................... K5 Figure K5. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 4 ..................................................................................... K6 Figure K6. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 5 ..................................................................................... K7 Figure K7. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 6 ..................................................................................... K8 Figure K8. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 7 ..................................................................................... K9 Figure K9. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 8 ................................................................................... K10 Figure K10. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 9 ................................................................................. K11 Figure K11. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 10 ............................................................................... K12 Figure K12. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 11 ............................................................................... K13 Figure K13. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 12 ............................................................................... K14 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station vi KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K14. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 13 ............................................................................... K15 Figure K15. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 14 ............................................................................... K16 Figure K16. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 15 ............................................................................... K17 Figure K17. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 16 ............................................................................... K18 Figure K18. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 17 ............................................................................... K19 Figure K19. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 18 ............................................................................... K20 Figure K20. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 19 ............................................................................... K21 Figure K21. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 20 ............................................................................... K22 Figure K22. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 21 ............................................................................... K23 Figure K23. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 22 ............................................................................... K24 Figure K24. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 23 ............................................................................... K25 Figure K25. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 24 ............................................................................... K26 Figure K26. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 25 ............................................................................... K27 Figure K27. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 26 ............................................................................... K28 Figure K28. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 27 ............................................................................... K29 Figure K29. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 28 ............................................................................... K30 Figure K30. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 29 ............................................................................... K31 Figure K31. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 30 ............................................................................... K32 Figure K32. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 31 ............................................................................... K33 Figure K33. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 32 ............................................................................... K34 Figure K34. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 33 ............................................................................... K35 Figure K35. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 34 ............................................................................... K36 Figure K36. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 35 ............................................................................... K37 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station vii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

List of Tables Table 11. Stakeholder Interaction ........................................................................................................... 11 Table 12. Highway Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 15 Table 13. ETE Study Comparisons ............................................................................................................ 19 Table 21. Evacuation Scenario Definitions............................................................................................... 24 Table 22. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather................................................................................. 28 Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population by Sub Area ................................................................... 34 Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Sub Area..................................................... 34 Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector ............................................................................. 37 Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles ..................................................................... 311 Table 35. Summary of NonEPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles...................................... 315 Table 36. FCNS EPZ External Traffic ....................................................................................................... 319 Table 37. Summary of Population Demand ........................................................................................... 321 Table 38. Summary of Vehicle Demand ................................................................................................. 322 Table 51. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities ................................................................................ 53 Table 52. Time Distribution for Notifying the Public ............................................................................... 56 Table 53. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work ................................................... 57 Table 54. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home .................................................................. 58 Table 55. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate ....................................................... 59 Table 56. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"8" of Snow ...................................................... 510 Table 57. Mapping Distributions to Events ............................................................................................ 512 Table 58. Description of the Distributions ............................................................................................. 513 Table 59. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Unstaged Evacuation ..................... 519 Table 510. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation ....................... 521 Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions........................................................................................... 63 Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions............................................................................................... 65 Table 63. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios ............................................ 66 Table 64. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario.................................................................................................. 67 Table 71. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population ........................... 78 Table 72. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population ....................... 710 Table 73. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2Mile Area within the Indicated Region ............................ 712 Table 74. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2Mile Area within the Indicated Region .......................... 713 Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions......................................................................................... 714 Table 76. Winter, Midday, Midweek 90th Percentile ETE for Individual Sub Areas ............................... 716 Table 77. Winter, Midday, Midweek 100th Percentile ETE for Individual Sub Areas ............................. 716 Table 81. TransitDependent Population Estimates .............................................................................. 815 Table 82. School Population Demand Estimates ................................................................................... 816 Table 83. Host School / Registration Centers ........................................................................................ 816 Table 84. Medical Facility Transit Demand ............................................................................................ 817 Table 85. Summary of Transportation Resources .................................................................................. 818 Table 86. Bus Route Descriptions .......................................................................................................... 819 Table 87. School Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather .............................................................. 821 Table 88. School Evacuation Time Estimates Rain............................................................................... 822 Table 89. School Evacuation Time Estimates Snow ............................................................................. 823 Table 810. Summary of TransitDependent Bus Routes ........................................................................ 824 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station viii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 811. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather ........................................ 825 Table 812. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Rain ......................................................... 826 Table 813. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates Snow ....................................................... 827 Table 814. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather ............................................. 828 Table 815. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Rain .............................................................. 829 Table 816. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Snow ............................................................ 830 Table 817. Homebound Special Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates .................................... 831 Table 121. Estimated Number of Telephone Calls Required for Confirmation of Evacuation .............. 122 Table A1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms .................................................................................... A1 Table C1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II ........................................................ C2 Table C2. Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model ........................................................................... C3 Table C3. Glossary ....................................................................................................................................C7 Table E1. Schools within the EPZ ............................................................................................................. E2 Table E2. Medical Facilities within the EPZ .............................................................................................. E3 Table E3. Major Employers within the EPZ .............................................................................................. E4 Table E4. Parks/Recreational Attractions within the EPZ ........................................................................ E5 Table E5. Lodging Facilities and Campgrounds within the EPZ................................................................ E6 Table E6. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ ....................................................................................... E6 Table F1. FCNS Telephone Survey Sampling Plan .................................................................................... F2 Table H1. Percent of PAZ Population Evacuating for Each Region ......................................................... H2 Table J1. Characteristics of the Ten Highest Volume Signalized Intersections........................................ J2 Table J2. Sample Simulation Model Input ............................................................................................... J4 Table J3. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03) ........................... J5 Table J4. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, Scenario 1)................................................................................... J6 Table J5. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 ......................... J7 Table K1. Evacuation Roadway Network Characteristics ...................................................................... K38 Table K2. Nodes in the LinkNode Analysis Network which are Controlled ........................................... K83 Table M1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study ....................................... M1 Table M2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study .................................................... M2 Table M3. ETE Variation with Population Change ................................................................................. M4 Table N1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist ................................................................................................. N1 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station ix KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station (FCNS) located in Washington County, Nebraska. ETE are part of the required planning basis and provide Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) and state and local governments with sitespecific information needed for Protective Action decisionmaking.

In the performance of this effort, guidance is provided by documents published by Federal Governmental agencies. Most important of these are:

Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR7002, November 2011.

Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG0654/FEMAREP1, Rev. 1, November 1980.

Development of Evacuation Time Estimates for Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG/CR6863, January 2005.

10CFR50, Appendix E - Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities Overview of Project Activities This project began in December, 2011 and extended over a period of 12 months. The major activities performed are briefly described in chronological sequence:

Attended kickoff meetings with OPPD personnel and emergency management personnel representing state and county governments.

Accessed U.S. Census Bureau data files for the year 2010. Studied Geographical Information Systems (GIS) maps of the area in the vicinity of the FCNS, then conducted a detailed field survey of the highway network.

Synthesized this information to create an analysis network representing the highway system topology and capacities within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ), plus a Shadow Region covering the region between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15 miles radially from the plant.

Designed and sponsored a telephone survey of residents within the EPZ to gather focused data needed for this ETE study that were not contained within the census database. The survey instrument was reviewed and modified by the licensee and offsite response organization (ORO) personnel prior to the survey.

Data collection forms (provided to the OROs at the kickoff meeting) were returned with data pertaining to employment, transients, and special facilities in each county.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station ES1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Telephone calls to specific facilities supplemented the data provided.

The traffic demand and tripgeneration rates of evacuating vehicles were estimated from the gathered data. The trip generation rates reflected the estimated mobilization time (i.e., the time required by evacuees to prepare for the evacuation trip) computed using the results of the telephone survey of EPZ residents.

Following federal guidelines, the EPZ is subdivided into 10 Sub Areas. These Sub Areas are then grouped within circular areas or keyhole configurations (circles plus radial sectors) that define a total of 37 Evacuation Regions.

The timevarying external circumstances are represented as Evacuation Scenarios, each described in terms of the following factors: (1) Season (Summer, Winter); (2) Day of Week (Midweek, Weekend); (3) Time of Day (Midday, Evening); and (4) Weather (Good, Rain, Snow). One special event scenario involving an outage at FCNS was considered.

One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein multiple roadway closures and diversions were modeled in order to recreate historical flood conditions. Staged evacuation was considered for those regions wherein the 2 mile radius and sectors downwind to 5 miles were evacuated.

As per NUREG/CR7002, the Planning Basis for the calculation of ETE is:

A rapidly escalating accident at the FCNS that quickly assumes the status of General Emergency such that the Advisory to Evacuate is virtually coincident with the siren alert, and no early protective actions have been implemented.

While an unlikely accident scenario, this planning basis will yield ETE, measured as the elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate until the stated percentage of the population exits the impacted Region, that represent upper bound estimates. This conservative Planning Basis is applicable for all initiating events.

If the emergency occurs while schools are in session, the ETE study assumes that the children will be evacuated by bus directly to registration centers or host schools located outside the EPZ. Parents, relatives, and neighbors are advised to not pick up their children at school prior to the arrival of the buses dispatched for that purpose. The ETE for schoolchildren are calculated separately.

Evacuees who do not have access to a private vehicle will either rideshare with relatives, friends or neighbors, or be evacuated by buses provided as specified in the county evacuation plans. Those in special facilities will likewise be evacuated with public transit, as needed: bus, van, or ambulance, as required. Separate ETE are calculated for the transitdependent evacuees, for homebound special needs population, and for those evacuated from special facilities.

Computation of ETE A total of 518 ETE were computed for the evacuation of the general public. Each ETE quantifies the aggregate evacuation time estimated for the population within one of the 37 Evacuation Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 14 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station ES2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Evacuation Scenarios (37 x 14 = 518). Separate ETE are calculated for transitdependent evacuees, including schoolchildren for applicable scenarios.

Except for Region R03, which is the evacuation of the entire EPZ, only a portion of the people within the EPZ would be advised to evacuate. That is, the Advisory to Evacuate applies only to those people occupying the specified impacted region. It is assumed that 100 percent of the people within the impacted region will evacuate in response to this Advisory. The people occupying the remainder of the EPZ outside the impacted region may be advised to take shelter.

The computation of ETE assumes that 20% of the population within the EPZ but outside the impacted region, will elect to voluntarily evacuate. In addition, 20% of the population in the Shadow Region will also elect to evacuate. These voluntary evacuees could impede those who are evacuating from within the impacted region. The impedance that could be caused by voluntary evacuees is considered in the computation of ETE for the impacted region.

Staged evacuation is considered wherein those people within the 2mile region evacuate immediately, while those beyond 2 miles, but within the EPZ, shelterinplace. Once 90% of the 2mile region is evacuated, those people beyond 2 miles begin to evacuate. As per federal guidance, 20% of people beyond 2 miles will evacuate (noncompliance) even though they are advised to shelterinplace.

The computational procedure is outlined as follows:

A linknode representation of the highway network is coded. Each link represents a unidirectional length of highway; each node usually represents an intersection or merge point. The capacity of each link is estimated based on the field survey observations and on established traffic engineering procedures.

The evacuation trips are generated at locations called zonal centroids located within the EPZ and Shadow Region. The trip generation rates vary over time reflecting the mobilization process, and from one location (centroid) to another depending on population density and on whether a centroid is within, or outside, the impacted area.

The evacuation model computes the routing patterns for evacuating vehicles that are compliant with federal guidelines (outbound relative to the location of the plant), then simulate the traffic flow movements over space and time. This simulation process estimates the rate that traffic flow exits the impacted region.

The ETE statistics provide the elapsed times for 90 percent and 100 percent, respectively, of the population within the impacted region, to evacuate from within the impacted region. These statistics are presented in tabular and graphical formats. The 90th percentile ETE have been identified as the values that should be considered when making protective action decisions because the 100th percentile ETE are prolonged by those relatively few people who take longer to mobilize. This is referred to as the evacuation tail in Section 4.0 of NUREG/CR7002.

The use of a public outreach (information) program to emphasize the need for evacuees to minimize the time needed to prepare to evacuate (secure the home, assemble needed clothes, medicines, etc.) should also be considered.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station ES3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Traffic Management This study references the comprehensive traffic management plans provided by Washington, Harrison and Pottawattamie, and identifies critical intersections.

Selected Results A compilation of selected information is presented on the following pages in the form of Figures and Tables extracted from the body of the report; these are described below.

Figure 61 displays a map of the FCNS EPZ showing the layout of the 10 Sub Areas that comprise, in aggregate, the EPZ.

Table 31 presents the estimates of permanent resident population in each Sub Area based on the 2010 Census data.

Table 61 defines each of the 37 Evacuation Regions in terms of their respective groups of Sub Areas.

Table 62 lists the Evacuation Scenarios.

Tables 71 and 72 are compilations of ETE. These data are the times needed to clear the indicated regions of 90 and 100 percent of the population occupying these regions, respectively. These computed ETE include consideration of mobilization time and of estimated voluntary evacuations from other regions within the EPZ and from the Shadow Region.

Tables 73 and 74 present ETE for the 2mile region for unstaged and staged evacuations for the 90th and 100th percentiles, respectively.

Table 87 presents ETE for the schoolchildren in good weather.

Table 811 presents ETE for the transitdependent population in good weather.

Figure H8 presents an example of an Evacuation Region (Region R08) to be evacuated under the circumstances defined in Table 61. Maps of all regions are provided in Appendix H.

Conclusions General population ETE were computed for 518 unique cases - a combination of 37 unique Evacuation Regions and 14 unique Evacuation Scenarios. Table 71 and Table 72 document these ETE for the 90th and 100th percentiles. These ETE range from 1:15 (hr:min) to 2:50 at the 90th percentile.

Inspection of Table 71 and Table 72 indicates that the ETE for the 100th percentile are significantly longer than those for the 90th percentile. This is the result of the long trip generation tail. As these stragglers mobilize, the aggregate rate of egress slows since many vehicles have already left the EPZ. See Figures 77 through 720.

Inspection of Table 73 and Table 74 indicates that a staged evacuation provides no benefits to evacuees from within the 2 mile region and unnecessarily delays the evacuation of those beyond 2 miles (compare Regions R04 through R12 and R02 with Regions R28 through R37 respectively, in Tables 71 and 72). See Section 7.6 for additional discussion.

Comparison of Scenarios 9 (winter, weekend, midday) and 13 (winter, weekend, Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station ES4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

midday) in Table 72 indicates that the special event does not materially affect the ETE.

See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 71 indicates that the roadway closure -

multiple road closures and diversions that simulate flooding conditions has no impact on the 90th or 100th percentile ETE. Sufficient reserve highway capacity mitigates the impacts of the capacity reduction considered.

There is minor traffic congestion within the EPZ centered around the main population center of the City of Blair. All congestion within the EPZ clears by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 45 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate. See Section 7.3 and Figures 73 through 76.

Separate ETE were computed for schools, medical facilities, transitdependent persons, homebound special needs persons and correctional facilities.

The average singlewave ETE for schools is about 1:00 less than the 90th percentile ETE for the general population. The average two wave ETE for schools is roughly 15 minutes higher than the 90th percentile ETE for the general population and average three wave school evacuation is 1:35 higher.

The transit dependent ETE is about 0:451:00 longer than the 90th percentile ETE for the general population.

The average singlewave ETE for medical facilities are within a similar range as the 90th percentile ETE for the general population. The average two wave ETE for medical facilities is roughly 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months higher than the 90th percentile ETE for the general population and average three wave school evacuation is roughly 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months higher.

The first wave percentile ETE homebound special needs are within a similar range as the general population ETE at the 90th percentile. See Section 8.

Table 85 indicates that there are enough ambulances available to evacuate the bedridden population within the EPZ in a single wave; however, there are not enough buses and wheelchair vans to evacuate the ambulatory and wheelchair bound population in a single wave. Mutual aid agreements with neighboring counties and assistance from the state should be considered to address the shortfall in transportation resources (See Sections 8.4 and 8.5).

The general population ETE at the 90th percentile is insensitive to reductions in the base trip generation time of 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months , 15 minutes. The general population ETE at the 100th percentile, however, closely mirrors trip generation time. See Table M1.

The general population ETE is insensitive to the voluntary evacuation of vehicles in the Shadow Region (tripling the shadow evacuation percentage has no effect on ETE). See Table M2.

An increase in permanent resident population of 120% or more results in ETE changes which meet the NRC criteria for updating ETE between decennial Censuses. See Section M.3.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station ES5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 61. FCNS EPZ Sub Areas Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station ES6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population Sub 2000 2010 Area Population Population 1 632 668 2 9,123 9,704 3 2,866 2,933 4 2,251 3,069 5 323 273 10 20 26 11 176 148 12 444 428 13 3,115 2,986 14 122 131 TOTAL 19,072 20,366 EPZ Population 6.78%

Growth:

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station ES7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Sub Area Region Description 1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 R01 2Mile Radius x x R02 5Mile Radius x x x x x x x R03 Full EPZ x x x x x x x x x x Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles Sub Area Region Wind Direction Towards 1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 R04 NW, NNW, N, NNE x x x x R05 NE x x x R06 ENE, E x x x x R07 ESE, SE x x x x R08 SSE x x x x x R09 S x x x x R10 SSW x x x x x R11 SW, WSW, W x x x x R12 WNW x x x Evacuate 5Mile Radius and Downwind to EPZ Boundary Sub Area Region Wind Direction Towards 1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 R13 N, NW, NNW x x x x x x x x R14 NNE, NE, ENE x x x x x x x x x R15 E, ESE x x x x x x x x R16 SE, SSE, S, SSW, SW x x x x x x x x N/A WSW, W, WNW Refer to R02 Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to EPZ Boundary Sub Area Region Wind Direction Towards 1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 R17 NW, NNW, N, NNE x x x x x R18 NNE x x x x x x R19 NE x x x x x R20 ENE x x x x x x R21 E x x x x x R22 ESE x x x x x R23 SE x x x x x R24 SSE x x x x x x R25 S x x x x x R26 SSW x x x x x x R27 SW x x x x x N/A WSW, W Refer to R11 N/A WNW Refer to R12 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Sub Area Region Wind Direction Towards 1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 R28 NW, NNW, N, NNE x x x x R29 NE x x x R30 ENE, E x x x x R31 ESE, SE x x x x R32 SSE x x x x x R33 S x x x x R34 SSW x x x x x R35 SW, WSW, W x x x x R36 WNW x x x R37 5Mile Region x x x x x x x ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate SubArea(s) ShelterinPlace SubArea(s) Evacuate Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station ES8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Day of Time of Scenario Season1 Week Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summer Weekend Evening Good None 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter Midweek Midday Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Snow None Midweek, 12 Winter Weekend Evening Good None 13 Winter Weekend Midday Good Outage at FCNS Roadway 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Impact/Flooding Scenario 1

Winter means that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer means that school is not in session.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station ES9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 71. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Snow Rain Snow Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 1:20 1:20 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:20 1:40 1:30 1:30 2:15 1:35 1:20 1:20 R02 2:00 2:00 1:45 1:50 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:40 1:50 1:50 2:35 2:00 1:45 2:00 R03 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:50 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:40 1:50 1:50 2:35 2:00 1:45 2:05 Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 2:05 1:55 2:05 R05 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:45 1:35 1:35 2:20 1:40 1:20 1:25 R06 1:15 1:20 1:15 1:15 1:25 1:15 1:20 1:30 1:15 1:20 1:30 1:30 1:15 1:15 R07 1:35 1:40 1:30 1:30 1:40 1:35 1:40 2:05 1:30 1:30 2:05 1:45 1:30 1:35 R08 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:40 1:50 1:50 1:50 2:25 1:40 1:40 2:20 1:50 1:40 1:50 R09 2:05 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:40 2:00 2:00 2:40 2:05 1:50 2:05 R10 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 2:05 2:00 2:10 R11 2:10 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 2:05 2:00 2:10 R12 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 2:05 1:55 2:05 Evacuate 5Mile Radius and Downwind to EPZ Boundary R13 2:00 2:00 1:45 1:45 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:40 1:50 1:50 2:35 2:00 1:45 2:00 R14 2:00 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:40 1:50 1:50 2:35 2:00 1:45 2:00 R15 2:00 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:40 1:50 1:50 2:35 2:00 1:45 2:00 R16 2:00 2:00 1:45 1:50 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:40 1:50 1:50 2:35 2:00 1:45 2:00 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station ES10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Snow Rain Snow Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to EPZ Boundary R17 2:00 2:00 1:45 1:50 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:35 1:50 1:50 2:35 2:00 1:45 2:00 R18 2:00 2:05 1:50 1:50 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:40 1:50 1:50 2:35 2:00 1:50 2:00 R19 1:40 1:40 1:30 1:30 1:45 1:40 1:45 2:15 1:35 1:35 2:15 1:45 1:30 1:40 R20 1:35 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:35 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:30 1:30 2:05 1:40 1:25 1:35 R21 1:35 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:35 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:25 1:30 2:00 1:40 1:25 1:35 R22 1:45 1:45 1:30 1:30 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:20 1:35 1:35 2:15 1:45 1:35 1:45 R23 1:40 1:45 1:30 1:30 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:15 1:35 1:35 2:15 1:45 1:30 1:40 R24 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:40 1:50 1:50 1:55 2:25 1:40 1:40 2:25 1:50 1:40 1:50 R25 2:05 2:05 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:40 2:00 2:00 2:40 2:05 1:50 2:05 R26 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 2:05 2:00 2:10 R27 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 2:05 2:00 2:10 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R28 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:45 2:10 2:15 2:50 2:10 2:10 2:10 R29 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:35 1:25 1:30 1:55 1:35 1:40 2:20 1:40 1:25 1:25 R30 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:40 1:25 1:25 1:50 1:35 1:20 1:20 R31 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:50 1:55 1:50 1:50 2:25 1:50 1:50 2:25 1:55 1:45 1:50 R32 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:35 1:55 2:00 2:35 2:00 1:55 2:00 R33 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 2:05 2:00 2:05 R34 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:50 2:10 2:15 2:50 2:10 2:10 2:10 R35 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:50 2:10 2:15 2:50 2:10 2:10 2:10 R36 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:45 2:10 2:15 2:50 2:10 2:10 2:10 R37 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:45 2:05 2:10 2:45 2:10 2:05 2:05 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station ES11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 72. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Snow Rain Snow Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 6:45 4:15 4:15 6:45 4:15 4:15 4:15 R02 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R03 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R05 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R06 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R07 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R08 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R09 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R10 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R11 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R12 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 Evacuate 5Mile Radius and Downwind to EPZ Boundary R13 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 R14 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 R15 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 R16 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station ES12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Snow Rain Snow Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to EPZ Boundary R17 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 R18 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 R19 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 R20 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 R21 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 R22 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 R23 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 R24 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 R25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 R26 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 R27 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R28 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R29 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R30 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R31 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R32 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R33 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R34 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R35 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R36 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R37 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station ES13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 73. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2Mile Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Snow Rain Snow Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region R01 1:20 1:20 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:20 1:40 1:30 1:30 2:15 1:35 1:20 1:20 R02 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:30 1:40 1:25 1:25 1:50 1:40 1:40 2:20 1:45 1:25 1:20 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:50 1:35 1:40 2:20 1:45 1:25 1:20 R05 1:20 1:20 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:45 1:35 1:35 2:20 1:40 1:20 1:20 R06 1:20 1:20 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:45 1:35 1:35 2:20 1:40 1:20 1:20 R07 1:20 1:20 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:20 1:40 1:30 1:30 2:15 1:35 1:20 1:20 R08 1:20 1:20 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:20 1:40 1:35 1:30 2:20 1:40 1:20 1:20 R09 1:20 1:20 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:20 1:40 1:35 1:30 2:20 1:40 1:20 1:20 R10 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:45 1:35 1:35 2:20 1:45 1:20 1:20 R11 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:45 1:35 1:35 2:20 1:45 1:20 1:20 R12 1:20 1:20 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:45 1:35 1:35 2:20 1:40 1:20 1:20 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R28 1:55 2:00 1:50 1:55 1:50 1:55 2:00 2:35 1:50 2:00 2:30 1:55 1:50 1:50 R29 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:55 1:35 1:40 2:20 1:40 1:25 1:25 R30 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:55 1:35 1:40 2:20 1:40 1:25 1:25 R31 1:20 1:20 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:45 1:35 1:35 2:20 1:40 1:20 1:20 R32 1:20 1:20 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:45 1:35 1:35 2:20 1:40 1:20 1:20 R33 1:20 1:20 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:45 1:35 1:35 2:20 1:40 1:20 1:20 R34 1:55 1:55 2:00 1:55 2:00 1:55 1:55 2:35 2:00 2:00 2:35 1:55 1:55 1:45 R35 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:55 2:00 1:55 2:00 2:35 2:00 2:00 2:35 1:55 1:55 1:45 R36 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:55 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:35 1:50 2:00 2:30 1:55 1:50 1:45 R37 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:00 2:35 2:00 2:00 2:35 1:55 1:55 1:45 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station ES14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 74. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2Mile Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Snow Rain Snow Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region R01 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 6:45 4:15 4:15 6:45 4:15 4:15 4:15 R02 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R05 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R06 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R07 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R08 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R09 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R10 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R11 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R12 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R28 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R29 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R30 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R31 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R32 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R33 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R34 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R35 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R36 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R37 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station ES15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 87. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather OneWave TwoWave ThreeWave Route Route Travel Travel Time Driver Route Driver Mobilizati Loading Length Speed Time ETE Distance to to H.S. Unload Rest Travel Loading ETE Distance to Travel Time Unload Rest Route Travel Loading ETE School on (min) Time (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (hr:min) H.S. (miles) (min) (min) (min) Time (min) Time (min) (hr:min) H.S. (miles) to H.S. (min) (min) (min) Time (min) Time (min) (hr:min)

Harrison County, IA Missouri Valley Elementary School 30 15 0.3 27.1 1 0:50 8.4 9 5 10 10 15 1:40 8.4 9 5 10 10 15 2:30 Missouri Valley High School 30 15 0.1 27.1 0 0:45 8.4 9 5 10 10 15 1:35 8.4 9 5 10 9 15 2:25 Missouri Valley Middle School 30 15 0.6 41.4 1 0:50 8.4 9 5 10 11 15 1:45 8.4 9 5 10 11 15 2:40 Washington County, NE Blair Arbor Park Middle School 30 15 10.3 35.7 17 1:05 11.6 13 5 10 36 15 2:25 11.6 13 5 10 35 15 3:45 Blair High School 30 15 10.5 34.5 18 1:05 11.7 13 5 10 36 15 2:25 11.7 13 5 10 36 15 3:45 Deerfield Elementary School 30 15 10.5 36.9 17 1:05 11.7 13 5 10 36 15 2:25 11.7 13 5 10 36 15 3:45 Gerald Otte Blair Middle School 30 15 11.0 34.5 19 1:05 11.7 13 5 10 38 15 2:30 11.7 13 5 10 37 15 3:50 North Elementary School 30 15 10.5 34.5 18 1:05 11.7 13 5 10 36 15 2:25 11.7 13 5 10 36 15 3:45 South Elementary School 30 15 9.3 37.4 15 1:00 11.7 13 5 10 33 15 2:20 11.7 13 5 10 33 15 3:40 West Elementary School 30 15 9.7 38.5 15 1:00 11.7 13 5 10 34 15 2:20 11.7 13 5 10 34 15 3:40 Fort Calhoun Elementary School 30 15 5.2 25.2 12 1:00 33.0 36 5 10 48 15 2:55 33.0 36 5 10 47 15 4:50 Fort Calhoun Jr.Sr. High School 30 15 5.5 26.2 13 1:00 33.0 36 5 10 48 15 2:55 33.0 36 5 10 48 15 4:50 Maximum ETE: 1:05 Maximum ETE: 2:55 Maximum ETE: 4:50 Average ETE: 1:00 Average ETE: 2:20 Average ETE: 3:40 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station ES16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 811. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather OneWave TwoWave Route Distance Travel Route Route Travel Pickup to Rec. Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE Ctr Rec. Ctr Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1 1 120 16.8 51.4 20 30 2:50 11.7 13 5 10 50 30 4:40 1,2,3 120 30.6 50.4 36 30 3:10 11.7 13 5 10 82 30 5:30 2

4,5 130 30.6 50.0 37 30 3:20 11.7 13 5 10 82 30 5:40 3 1 120 15.0 55.0 16 30 2:50 11.7 13 5 10 46 30 4:35 4 1,2 120 7.8 54.8 9 30 2:40 33.0 36 5 10 53 30 4:55 5 1 120 7.1 55.0 8 30 2:40 37.1 40 5 10 56 30 5:05 6 1 120 11.2 54.0 12 30 2:45 45.4 50 5 10 74 30 5:35 7 1 120 14.6 53.2 17 30 2:50 45.4 50 5 10 82 30 5:50 8 1 120 6.3 54.9 7 30 2:40 49.2 54 5 10 67 30 5:30 9 1 120 8.1 31.9 15 30 2:45 45.8 50 5 10 72 30 5:35 10 1 120 6.8 43.3 9 30 2:40 67.5 74 5 10 90 30 6:10 Maximum ETE: 3:20 Maximum ETE: 6:10 Average ETE: 2:50 Average ETE: 5:25 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station ES17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H8. Region R08 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station ES18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

1 INTRODUCTION This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station (FCNS), located in Washington County, Nebraska. ETE provide State and local governments with sitespecific information needed for Protective Action decisionmaking.

In the performance of this effort, guidance is provided by documents published by Federal Governmental agencies. Most important of these are:

Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR7002, November 2011.

Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG 0654/FEMA REP 1, Rev. 1, November 1980.

Analysis of Techniques for Estimating Evacuation Times for Emergency Planning Zones, NUREG/CR 1745, November 1980.

Development of Evacuation Time Estimates for Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG/CR 6863, January 2005.

The work effort reported herein was supported and guided by local stakeholders who contributed suggestions, critiques, and the local knowledge base required. Table 11 presents a summary of stakeholders and interactions.

Table 11. Stakeholder Interaction Stakeholder Nature of Stakeholder Interaction Meetings to define data requirements and set up Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) contacts with local government agencies Region 5/6 Emergency Management Agency (EMA) Meetings to define data requirements and set up Harrison County Emergency Management Agency contacts with local government agencies. Obtain (EMA) and local emergency plans, special facility data, major employment data Pottawattamie County Emergency Management Agency Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Obtain state emergency plan Management (HSEM) and Nebraska Emergency Management Agency Local and State Police Agencies Obtain existing traffic management plans 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process The following outline presents a brief description of the work effort in chronological sequence:

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

1. Information Gathering:

a. Defined the scope of work in discussions with representatives from Omaha Public Power District.

b. Attended meetings with emergency planners from Iowa HSEM, Nebraska EMA, Region 5/6 EMA, Harrison County EMA, and Pottawattamie County EMA to identify issues to be addressed and resources available.

c. Conducted a detailed field survey of the highway system and of area traffic conditions within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and Shadow Region.

d. Obtained demographic data from the 2010 census, state and county agencies.

e. Conducted a random sample telephone survey of EPZ residents.

f. Conducted a data collection effort to identify and describe schools, special facilities, major employers, transportation providers, and other important information.

2. Estimated distributions of Trip Generation times representing the time required by various population groups (permanent residents, employees, and transients) to prepare (mobilize) for the evacuation trip. These estimates are primarily based upon the random sample telephone survey.

3. Defined Evacuation Scenarios. These scenarios reflect the variation in demand, in trip generation distribution and in highway capacities, associated with different seasons, day of week, time of day and weather conditions.

4. Reviewed the existing traffic management plan to be implemented by local and state police in the event of an incident at the plant. Traffic control is applied at specified Traffic Control Points (TCP) located within the EPZ.

5. Used existing Sub Areas to define Evacuation Regions. The EPZ is partitioned into 10 Sub Areas along jurisdictional and geographic boundaries. Regions are groups of contiguous Sub Areas for which ETE are calculated. The configurations of these Regions reflect wind direction and the radial extent of the impacted area. Each Region, other than those that approximate circular areas, approximates a keyhole section within the EPZ as recommended by NUREG/CR7002.

6. Estimated demand for transit services for persons at Special Facilities and for transit dependent persons at home.

7. Prepared the input streams for the DYNEV II system.

a. Estimated the evacuation traffic demand, based on the available information derived from Census data, and from data provided by county and state agencies, OPPD and from the telephone survey.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

b. Applied the procedures specified in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM1) to the data acquired during the field survey, to estimate the capacity of all highway segments comprising the evacuation routes.

c. Developed the linknode representation of the evacuation network, which is used as the basis for the computer analysis that calculates the ETE.

d. Calculated the evacuating traffic demand for each Region and for each Scenario.

e. Specified selected candidate destinations for each origin (location of each source where evacuation trips are generated over the mobilization time) to support evacuation travel consistent with outbound movement relative to the location of the FCNS.

8. Executed the DYNEV II model to determine optimal evacuation routing and compute ETE for all residents, transients and employees (general population) with access to private vehicles. Generated a complete set of ETE for all specified Regions and Scenarios.

9. Documented ETE in formats in accordance with NUREG/CR7002.

10. Calculated the ETE for all transit activities including those for special facilities (schools, medical facilities, etc.), for the transitdependent population and for homebound special needs population.

1.2 The Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station Location The FCNS is located along the shores of the Missouri River in Washington County, Nebraska.

The site is approximately 20 miles north northwest of Omaha, NE. The Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) consists of parts of Washington and Douglas Counties in Nebraska and Harrison and Pottawattamie Counties in Iowa. Figure 11 displays the area surrounding the FCNS. This map identifies the towns in the area and the major roads.

1 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010), Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2010.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 11. FCNS Location Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

1.3 Preliminary Activities These activities are described below.

Field Surveys of the Highway Network KLD personnel drove the entire highway system within the EPZ and the Shadow Region which consists of the area between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15 miles radially from the plant. The characteristics of each section of highway were recorded. These characteristics are shown in Table 12:

Table 12. Highway Characteristics Number of lanes Posted speed Lane width Actual free speed Shoulder type & width Abutting land use Interchange geometries Control devices Lane channelization & queuing Intersection configuration (including capacity (including turn bays/lanes) roundabouts where applicable)

Geometrics: curves, grades (>4%) Traffic signal type Unusual characteristics: Narrow bridges, sharp curves, poor pavement, flood warning signs, inadequate delineations, toll booths, etc.

Video and audio recording equipment were used to capture a permanent record of the highway infrastructure. No attempt was made to meticulously measure such attributes as lane width and shoulder width; estimates of these measures based on visual observation and recorded images were considered appropriate for the purpose of estimating the capacity of highway sections. For example, Exhibit 157 in the HCM indicates that a reduction in lane width from 12 feet (the base value) to 10 feet can reduce free flow speed (FFS) by 1.1 mph - not a material difference - for twolane highways. Exhibit 1530 in the HCM shows little sensitivity for the estimates of Service Volumes at Level of Service (LOS) E (near capacity), with respect to FFS, for twolane highways.

The data from the audio and video recordings were used to create detailed geographical information systems (GIS) shapefiles and databases of the roadway characteristics and of the traffic control devices observed during the road survey; this information was referenced while preparing the input stream for the DYNEV II System.

As documented on page 155 of the HCM 2010, the capacity of a twolane highway is 1700 passenger cars per hour in one direction. For freeway sections, a value of 2250 vehicles per hour per lane is assigned, as per Exhibit 1117 of the HCM 2010. The road survey has identified several segments which are characterized by adverse geometrics on twolane highways which are reflected in reduced values for both capacity and speed. These estimates are consistent with the service volumes for LOS E presented in HCM Exhibit 1530. These links may be Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

identified by reviewing Appendix K. Link capacity is an input to DYNEV II which computes the ETE. Further discussion of roadway capacity is provided in Section 4 of this report.

Traffic signals are either pretimed (signal timings are fixed over time and do not change with the traffic volume on competing approaches), or are actuated (signal timings vary over time based on the changing traffic volumes on competing approaches). Actuated signals require detectors to provide the traffic data used by the signal controller to adjust the signal timings.

These detectors are typically magnetic loops in the roadway, or video cameras mounted on the signal masts and pointed toward the intersection approaches. If detectors were observed on the approaches to a signalized intersection during the road survey, detailed signal timings were not collected as the timings vary with traffic volume. TCPs at locations which have control devices are represented as actuated signals in the DYNEV II system.

If no detectors were observed, the signal control at the intersection was considered pretimed, and detailed signal timings were gathered for several signal cycles. These signal timings were input to the DYNEV II system used to compute ETE, as per NUREG/CR7002 guidance.

Figure 12 presents the linknode analysis network that was constructed to model the evacuation roadway network in the EPZ and Shadow Region. The directional arrows on the links and the node numbers have been removed from Figure 12 to clarify the figure. The detailed figures provided in Appendix K depict the analysis network with directional arrows shown and node numbers provided. The observations made during the field survey were used to calibrate the analysis network.

Telephone Survey A telephone survey was undertaken to gather information needed for the evacuation study.

Appendix F presents the survey instrument, the procedures used and tabulations of data compiled from the survey returns.

These data were utilized to develop estimates of vehicle occupancy to estimate the number of evacuating vehicles during an evacuation and to estimate elements of the mobilization process.

This database was also referenced to estimate the number of transitdependent residents.

Computing the Evacuation Time Estimates The overall study procedure is outlined in Appendix D. Demographic data were obtained from several sources, as detailed later in this report. These data were analyzed and converted into vehicle demand data. The vehicle demand was loaded onto appropriate source links of the analysis network using GIS mapping software. The DYNEV II system was then used to compute ETE for all Regions and Scenarios.

Analytical Tools The DYNEV II System that was employed for this study is comprised of several integrated computer models. One of these is the DYNEV (DYnamic Network EVacuation) macroscopic simulation model, a new version of the IDYNEV model that was developed by KLD under contract with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 12. FCNS LinkNode Analysis Network Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

DYNEV II consists of four submodels:

A macroscopic traffic simulation model (for details, see Appendix C).

A Trip Distribution (TD), model that assigns a set of candidate destination (D) nodes for each origin (O) located within the analysis network, where evacuation trips are generated over time. This establishes a set of OD tables.

A Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA), model which assigns trips to paths of travel (routes) which satisfy the OD tables, over time. The TD and DTA models are integrated to form the DTRAD (Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution) model, as described in Appendix B.

A Myopic Traffic Diversion model which diverts traffic to avoid intense, local congestion, if possible.

Another software product developed by KLD, named UNITES (UNIfied Transportation Engineering System) was used to expedite data entry and to automate the production of output tables.

The dynamics of traffic flow over the network are graphically animated using the software product, EVAN (EVacuation ANimator), developed by KLD. EVAN is GIS based, and displays statistics such as LOS, vehicles discharged, average speed, and percent of vehicles evacuated, output by the DYNEV II System. The use of a GIS framework enables the user to zoom in on areas of congestion and query road name, town name and other geographical information.

The procedure for applying the DYNEV II System within the framework of developing ETE is outlined in Appendix D. Appendix A is a glossary of terms.

For the reader interested in an evaluation of the original model, IDYNEV, the following references are suggested:

NUREG/CR4873 - Benchmark Study of the IDYNEV Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code NUREG/CR4874 - The Sensitivity of Evacuation Time Estimates to Changes in Input Parameters for the IDYNEV Computer Code The evacuation analysis procedures are based upon the need to:

Route traffic along paths of travel that will expedite their travel from their respective points of origin to points outside the EPZ.

Restrict movement toward the plant to the extent practicable, and disperse traffic demand so as to avoid focusing demand on a limited number of highways.

Move traffic in directions that are generally outbound, relative to the location of the FCNS.

DYNEV II provides a detailed description of traffic operations on the evacuation network. This description enables the analyst to identify bottlenecks and to develop countermeasures that are designed to represent the behavioral responses of evacuees. The effects of these Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

countermeasures may then be tested with the model.

1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study Table 13 presents a comparison of the present ETE study with the 1998 study. The major factors contributing to the differences between the ETE values obtained in this study and those of the previous study can be summarized as follows:

Changes which cause an increase in the ETE o An increase in permanent resident population of approx. 2,000.

o A decrease in vehicle occupancy, based on the results of the telephone survey of EPZ residents.

o Tripgeneration rates are based on the results of a telephone survey of EPZ residents; 100% mobilization time for permanent residents is 90 minutes longer.

o Voluntary and shadow evacuations are considered.

Changes which cause an decrease in the ETE o The highway representation is far more detailed.

o Dynamic evacuation modeling.

o Only employees residing outside the EPZ, but working within it are considered.

o Capacity reductions due to bad weather were higher in the 1998 study.

Table 13. ETE Study Comparisons Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study ArcGIS Software using 2010 US 1990 US Census Data; 1998 Metropolitan Resident Population Census blocks; area ratio method Area Planning Association (MAPA)

Basis used.

Population = 18,423 Population = 20,366 Vehicle occupancy based census and MAPA 2.61 persons/household, 1.4 Resident Population data. 2.5 persons per household used to evacuating vehicles/household Vehicle Occupancy estimate number of vehicles. yielding: 1.86 persons/vehicle.

Employee estimates based on Employee estimates based on local Chamber data provided about major of Commerce data about major employers in employers in EPZ by the Employee EPZ supplemented with phone call surveys.

counties. 1.07 employees per Population 1.0 employees per vehicle were used for all vehicle based on telephone major employers.

survey results.

Employees = 3,077 Employees = 1,840 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study Estimates based upon U.S.

Census data and the results of the telephone survey. A total of 346 people who do not have In order to estimate the total vehicle demand access to a vehicle, requiring 15 associated with the transport dependent TransitDependent buses to evacuate. An additional population, the same occupancy rate as that Population 12 homebound special needs used for the autoowning population was persons needed special used.

transportation to evacuate (9 require a wheelchairaccessible vehicle, and 3 require an ambulance).

Transient estimates based upon Transient estimates based on local Chamber information provided about Transient of Commerce data about major employers in transient attractions in EPZ from Population EPZ supplemented with phone call surveys. the counties, supplemented by Transients = 2,270 phone surveys to facilities.

Transients = 2,273 Special facility population based on information provided by each county within the EPZ.

Special facility population based on Medical: Current census = 446 information provided by each county within Special Facilities Buses Required = 8 the EPZ.

Population Wheelchair Van Required = 19 Special Facility Population = 402 Vans Required = 10 Correctional: Current census =

32 Buses required = 2 School population based on School population based on information information provided by each provided by each county within the EPZ.

School Population county within the EPZ.

School enrollment = 4,538 School enrollment = 3,789 Vehicles originating at schools = 294 Buses required = 73 Voluntary 20 percent of the population evacuation from within the EPZ, but not within within EPZ in areas Not considered the Evacuation Region (see outside region to be Figure 21) evacuated 20 percent of people outside of the EPZ within the Shadow Shadow Evacuation Not considered Region.

(see Figure 72)

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 110 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study Network Size 75 links; 25 nodes 1,098 links; 752 nodes County highway maps of the EPZ area; Field surveys conducted in discussions with the County and local law December 2011. Roads and Roadway Geometric enforcement and emergency preparedness intersections were video Data officials; and Field surveys conducted in archived.

1991. Road capacities based on 2010 HCM.

Direct evacuation to designated School Evacuation Not Specified Host School/Registration Center.

50 percent of transitdependent Ridesharing Not considered persons will evacuate with a neighbor or friend.

Based on residential telephone survey of specific pretrip Trip Generation curves based on review of mobilization activities:

the sitespecific characteristics and Residents with commuters discussions with county emergency returning leave between 30 and preparedness officials. Permanent residents 255 minutes.

Trip Generation for evacuate between 30 and 150 minutes after Residents without commuters Evacuation the advisory to evacuate. returning leave between 0 and Employees and transients leave between 30 240 minutes.

and 60 minutes. Employees and transients leave between 0 and 90 minutes.

All times measured from the Advisory to Evacuate.

Normal, Rain, or Snow. The Normal, Rain, or Snow. The capacity and free capacity and free flow speed of flow speed of all links in the network are Weather all links in the network are reduced by 20% in the event of rain and 30%

reduced by 10% in the event of for snow.

rain and 20% for snow.

DYNEV II System - Version Modeling NETVAC 4.0.11.0 An outage at FCNS Special Events None considered Additional Vehicles due to Special Event = 490 37 Regions (central sector wind direction and each adjacent 25 Cases and 6 Conditions producing 150 Evacuation Cases sector technique used) and 14 unique cases.

Scenarios producing 518 unique cases.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 111 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study ETE reported for 90th and 100th ETE reported for 100th percentile population Evacuation Time percentile population. Results for all regions. Results presented by Case and Estimates Reporting presented by Region and Condition.

Scenario.

Winter Weekday Midday, Good Weather 90th Percentile: 2:05 Winter, Weekday, 100th Percentile: 4:25 Evacuation Time Fair Weather: 2:55 Estimates for the entire EPZ Summer Weekend, Midday, Summer, Weekend, Good Weather Fair Weather: 2:55 90th Percentile: 1:45 100h Percentile: 4:25 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 112 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

2 STUDY ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS This section presents the estimates and assumptions utilized in the development of the evacuation time estimates.

2.1 Data Estimates

1. Population estimates are based upon Census 2010 data.

2. Estimates of employees who reside outside the EPZ and commute to work within the EPZ are based upon data obtained from local emergency management agencies as well as from surveys of individual employers.

3. Population estimates at special facilities are based on available data from county emergency management agencies and from phone calls to specific facilities.

4. Roadway capacity estimates are based on field surveys and the application of the Highway Capacity Manual 2010.

5. Population mobilization times are based on a statistical analysis of data acquired from a random sample telephone survey of EPZ residents (see Section 5 and Appendix F).

6. The relationship between resident population and evacuating vehicles is developed from the telephone survey. Average values of 2.61 persons per household and 1.40 evacuating vehicles per household are used. The relationship between persons and vehicles for transients and employees is as follows:

a. Employees: 1.07 employees per vehicle (telephone survey results) for all major employers.

b. Parks: Vehicle occupancy varies based upon data gathered from local transient facilities.

c. Special Event: Additional outage staff at FCNS will use the average employee vehicle occupancy of 1.07 persons per vehicle, taken from the telephone survey results.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

2.2 Study Methodological Assumptions

1. ETE are presented for the evacuation of the 90th and 100th percentiles of population for each Region and for each Scenario. The percentile ETE is defined as the elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate issued to a specific Region of the EPZ, to the time that Region is clear of the indicated percentile of evacuees. A Region is defined as a group of Sub Areas that is issued an Advisory to Evacuate. A scenario is a combination of circumstances, including time of day, day of week, season, and weather conditions.

2. The ETE are computed and presented in tabular format and graphically, in a format compliant with NUREG/CR7002.

3. Evacuation movements (paths of travel) are generally outbound relative to the plant to the extent permitted by the highway network. All major evacuation routes are used in the analysis.

4. Regions are defined by the underlying keyhole or circular configurations as specified in Section 1.4 of NUREG/CR7002. These Regions, as defined, display irregular boundaries reflecting the geography of the Sub Areas included within these underlying configurations.

5. As indicated in Figure 22 of NUREG/CR7002, 100% of people within the impacted keyhole evacuate. 20% of those people within the EPZ, not within the impacted keyhole, will voluntarily evacuate. 20% of those people within the Shadow Region will voluntarily evacuate. See Figure 21 for a graphical representation of these evacuation percentages. Sensitivity studies explore the effect on ETE of increasing the percentage of voluntary evacuees in the Shadow Region (see Appendix M).

6. A total of 14 Scenarios representing different temporal variations (season, time of day, day of week) and weather conditions are considered. These Scenarios are outlined in Table 21.

7. Scenario 14 considers multiple road closures which mimic roadway conditions that have occurred in the past as a result of flooding of the Missouri River, particularly those which occurred during the summer of 2011. The following road closures and diversions constitute Scenario 14:

a. All roadways south of Desoto Ave and east of the Missouri River up to and including I29 are closed.

b. Southbound traffic on I29 is diverted at the Desoto Ave exit and rerouted onto Old Lincoln Hwy.

These conditions may persist for several months. Therefore, the inhabitants of the flood zone are assumed to have vacated the area prior to an ATE originating from FCNS.

8. The models of the IDYNEV System were recognized as state of the art by the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board (ASLB) in past hearings. (Sources: Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Hearings on Seabrook and Shoreham; Urbanik1). The models have continuously been refined and extended since those hearings and were independently validated by a 1

Urbanik, T., et. al. Benchmark Study of the IDYNEV Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code, NUREG/CR4873, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June, 1988.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

consultant retained by the NRC. The new DYNEV II model incorporates the latest technology in traffic simulation and in dynamic traffic assignment. The DYNEV II System is used to compute ETE in this study.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 21. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Day of Time of Scenario Season2 Week Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summer Weekend Evening Good None 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter Midweek Midday Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Snow None Midweek, 12 Winter Weekend Evening Good None 13 Winter Weekend Midday Good Outage at FCNS Roadway 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Impact/Flooding Scenario 2

Winter means that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer means that school is not in session.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

2.3 Study Assumptions

1. The Planning Basis Assumption for the calculation of ETE is a rapidly escalating accident that requires evacuation, and includes the following:

a. Advisory to Evacuate is announced coincident with the siren notification.

b. Mobilization of the general population will commence within 15 minutes after siren notification.

c. ETE are measured relative to the Advisory to Evacuate.

2. It is assumed that everyone within the group of Sub Areas forming a Region that is issued an Advisory to Evacuate will, in fact, respond and evacuate in general accord with the planned routes.

3. 65 percent of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter; 42 percent of those households with commuters will await the return of a commuter before beginning their evacuation trip, based on the telephone survey results. Therefore 27 percent (65% x 42% = 27%) of EPZ households will await the return of a commuter, prior to beginning their evacuation trip.

4. The ETE will also include consideration of through (ExternalExternal) trips during the time that such traffic is permitted to enter the evacuated Region. Normal traffic flow is assumed to be present within the EPZ at the start of the emergency.

5. Access Control Points (ACP) will be staffed within approximately 60 minutes following the siren notifications, to divert traffic attempting to enter the EPZ. Earlier activation of ACP locations could delay returning commuters. It is assumed that no through traffic will enter the EPZ after this 60 minute time period.

6. Traffic Control Points (TCP) within the EPZ will be staffed over time, beginning at the Advisory to Evacuate. Their number and location will depend on the Region to be evacuated and resources available. The objectives of these TCP are:

a. Facilitate the movements of all (mostly evacuating) vehicles at the location.

b. Discourage inadvertent vehicle movements towards the plant.

c. Provide assurance and guidance to any traveler who is unsure of the appropriate actions or routing.

d. Act as local surveillance and communications center.

e. Provide information to the emergency operations center (EOC) as needed, based on direct observation or on information provided by travelers.

In calculating ETE, it is assumed that evacuees will drive safely, travel in directions identified in the plan, and obey all control devices and traffic guides.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

7. Buses will be used to transport those without access to private vehicles:

a. If schools are in session, transport (buses) will evacuate students directly to the designated host schools.

b. It is assumed parents will pick up children at day care centers prior to evacuation.

c. Buses, wheelchair vans, vans and ambulances will evacuate patients at medical facilities and at any senior facilities within the EPZ, as needed.

d. Transitdependent general population will be evacuated to registration centers.

e. Schoolchildren, if school is in session, are given priority in assigning transit vehicles.

f. Bus mobilization time is considered in ETE calculations.

g. Analysis of the number of required roundtrips (waves) of evacuating transit vehicles is presented.

h. Transport of transitdependent evacuees from registration centers to congregate care centers is not considered in this study.

8. Provisions are made for evacuating the transitdependent portion of the general population to registration centers by bus, based on the assumption that some of these people will rideshare with family, neighbors, and friends, thus reducing the demand for buses. We assume that the percentage of people who rideshare is 50 percent. This assumption is based upon reported experience for other emergencies3, and on guidance in Section 2.2 of NUREG/CR7002.

9. Two types of adverse weather scenarios are considered. Rain may occur for either winter or summer scenarios; snow occurs in winter scenarios only. It is assumed that the rain or snow begins earlier or at about the same time the evacuation advisory is issued.

No weatherrelated reduction in the number of transients who may be present in the EPZ is assumed. It is assumed that roads are passable and that the appropriate agencies are plowing the roads as they would normally when snowing.

Adverse weather scenarios affect roadway capacity and the free flow highway speeds.

The factors applied for the ETE study are based on recent research on the effects of weather on roadway operations4; the factors are shown in Table 22.

3 Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto, THE MISSISSAUGA EVACUATION FINAL REPORT, June 1981. The report indicates that 6,600 people of a transitdependent population of 8,600 people shared rides with other residents; a ride share rate of 76% (Page 510).

4 Agarwal, M. et. Al. Impacts of Weather on Urban Freeway Traffic Flow Characteristics and Facility Capacity, Proceedings of the 2005 MidContinent Transportation Research Symposium, August, 2005. The results of this paper are included as Exhibit 1015 in the HCM 2010.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

10. School buses used to transport students are assumed to transport 70 students per bus for elementary schools and 50 students per bus for middle and high schools, based on discussions with county offices of emergency management. Transit buses used to transport the transitdependent general population are assumed to transport 30 people per bus.

Table 22. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather Highway Free Flow Scenario Capacity* Speed* Mobilization Time for General Population Rain 90% 90% No Effect Clear driveway before leaving home Snow 80% 80%

(See Figure F13)

Adverse weather capacity and speed values are given as a percentage of good weather conditions. Roads are assumed to be passable.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

3 DEMAND ESTIMATION The estimates of demand, expressed in terms of people and vehicles, constitute a critical element in developing an evacuation plan. These estimates consist of three components:

1. An estimate of population within the EPZ, stratified into groups (resident, employee, transient).

2. An estimate, for each population group, of mean occupancy per evacuating vehicle. This estimate is used to determine the number of evacuating vehicles.

3. An estimate of potential doublecounting of vehicles.

Appendix E presents much of the source material for the population estimates. Our primary source of population data, the 2010 Census, however, is not adequate for directly estimating some transient groups.

Throughout the year, vacationers and tourists enter the EPZ. These nonresidents may dwell within the EPZ for a short period (e.g. a few days or one or two weeks), or may enter and leave within one day. Estimates of the size of these population components must be obtained, so that the associated number of evacuating vehicles can be ascertained.

The potential for doublecounting people and vehicles must be addressed. For example:

A resident who works and shops within the EPZ could be counted as a resident, again as an employee and once again as a shopper.

A visitor who stays at a hotel and spends time at a park, then goes shopping could be counted three times.

Furthermore, the number of vehicles at a location depends on time of day. For example, motel parking lots may be full at dawn and empty at noon. Similarly, parking lots at area parks, which are full at noon, may be almost empty at dawn. Estimating counts of vehicles by simply adding up the capacities of different types of parking facilities will tend to overestimate the number of transients and can lead to ETE that are too conservative.

Analysis of the population characteristics of the FCNS EPZ indicates the need to identify three distinct groups:

Permanent residents people who are year round residents of the EPZ.

Transients people who reside outside of the EPZ who enter the area for a specific purpose (shopping, recreation) and then leave the area.

Employees people who reside outside of the EPZ and commute to businesses within the EPZ on a daily basis.

Estimates of the population and number of evacuating vehicles for each of the population groups are presented for each Sub Area and by polar coordinate representation (population rose). The FCNS EPZ is subdivided into 10 Sub Areas. The EPZ is shown in Figure 31.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

3.1 Permanent Residents The primary source for estimating permanent population is the latest U.S. Census data. The average household size (2.61 persons/household - See Figure F1) and the number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.40 vehicles/household - See Figure F8) were adapted from the telephone survey results.

Population estimates are based upon Census 2010 data. The estimates are created by cutting the census block polygons by the Sub Area and EPZ boundaries. A ratio of the original area of each census block and the updated area (after cutting) is multiplied by the total block population to estimate what the population is within the EPZ. This methodology assumes that the population is evenly distributed across a census block. Table 31 provides the permanent resident population within the EPZ, by Sub Area based on this methodology.

The year 2010 permanent resident population is divided by the average household size and then multiplied by the average number of evacuating vehicles per household in order to estimate number of vehicles. Permanent resident population and vehicle estimates are presented in Table 32.

Figure 32 and Figure 33 present the permanent resident population and permanent resident vehicle estimates by sector and distance from FCNS. This rose was constructed using GIS software.

It can be argued that this estimate of permanent residents overstates, somewhat, the number of evacuating vehicles, especially during the summer. It is certainly reasonable to assert that some portion of the population would be on vacation during the summer and would travel elsewhere. A rough estimate of this reduction can be obtained as follows:

Assume 50 percent of all households vacation for a twoweek period over the summer.

Assume these vacations, in aggregate, are uniformly dispersed over 10 weeks, i.e. 10 percent of the population is on vacation during each twoweek interval.

Assume half of these vacationers leave the area.

On this basis, the permanent resident population would be reduced by 5 percent in the summer and by a lesser amount in the offseason. Given the uncertainty in this estimate, we elected to apply no reductions in permanent resident population for the summer scenarios to account for residents who may be out of the area.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 31. FCNS EPZ Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population by Sub Area Sub 2000 2010 Area Population Population 1 632 668 2 9,123 9,704 3 2,866 2,933 4 2,251 3,069 5 323 273 10 20 26 11 176 148 12 444 428 13 3,115 2,986 14 122 131 TOTAL 19,072 20,366 EPZ Population 6.78%

Growth:

Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Sub Area 2010 2010 Resident Sub Area Population Vehicles 1 668 359 2 9,704 5,219 3 2,933 1,580 4 3,069 1,644 5 273 149 10 26 14 11 148 82 12 428 234 13 2,986 1,611 14 131 72 TOTAL 20,366 10,964 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 35 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 36 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

3.2 Shadow Population A portion of the population living outside the evacuation area extending to 15 miles radially from the FCNS (in the Shadow Region) may elect to evacuate without having been instructed to do so. Based upon NUREG/CR7002 guidance, it is assumed that 20 percent of the permanent resident population, based on U.S. Census Bureau data, in this Shadow Region will elect to evacuate.

Shadow population characteristics (household size, evacuating vehicles per household, mobilization time) are assumed to be the same as that for the EPZ permanent resident population. Table 33, Figure 34, and Figure 35 present estimates of the shadow population and vehicles, by sector.

Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector Evacuating Sector Population Vehicles N 508 274 NNE 134 76 NE 314 170 ENE 1,050 562 E 537 291 ESE 665 360 SE 317 172 SSE 22,644 12,152 S 24,461 13,126 SSW 9,771 5,244 SW 587 316 WSW 717 387 W 350 193 WNW 207 118 NW 547 300 NNW 28 17 TOTAL 62,837 33,758 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 37 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 38 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 39 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

3.3 Transient Population Transient population groups are defined as those people (who are not permanent residents, nor commuting employees) who enter the EPZ for a specific purpose (shopping, recreation).

Transients may spend less than one day or stay overnight at camping facilities, hotels and motels. The FCNS EPZ has a number of areas and facilities that attract transients, including:

Lodging Facilities Parks and Historical Sites Campgrounds A Golf Course Data provided by Harrison and Washington counties along with surveys of lodging facilities within the EPZ to determine the number of rooms, percentage of occupied rooms at peak times, and the number of people and vehicles per room for each facility. These data were used to estimate the number of transients and evacuating vehicles at each of these facilities. A total of 634 transients in 363 vehicles are assigned to lodging facilities in the EPZ.

A survey of the Wilson Island Recreation Area campground was conducted to determine number of campsites and the peak number of persons and vehicles per campsite. These data were used to estimate the number of transients and evacuating vehicles at this facility. A total of 270 transients in 189 vehicles are assigned to the campground at Wilson Island Recreation Area.

Data provided by Harrison, Pottawattamie, and Washington Counties along with surveys of the parks and historical sites within the EPZ were used to determine the number of transients visiting each of those places on a typical day. DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge is the largest single park in the area and is assigned 900 transients and 315 vehicles. A total of 1,299 transients and 405 vehicles have been assigned to all parks and historical sites within the EPZ.

There is one golf course, River Wilds Golf Club, within the EPZ. A survey of this course was conducted to determine the number of golfers and vehicles at the facility on a typical peak day, and the number of golfers that travels from outside the area. A total of 70 transients and 40 vehicles are assigned to River Wilds Golf Club.

Appendix E summarizes the transient data that was estimated for the EPZ. Table E4 presents the number of transients visiting recreational areas, while Table E5 presents the number of transients at lodging facilities and campgrounds within the EPZ.

Table 34 presents transient population and transient vehicle estimates by Sub Area. Figure 36 and Figure 37 present these data by sector and distance from the plant.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 310 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles Sub Transient Transients Area Vehicles 1 0 0 2 259 154 3 270 45 4 0 0 5 0 0 10 900 315 11 0 0 12 0 0 13 445 249 14 399 234 TOTAL 2,273 997 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 311 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 312 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 313 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

3.4 Employees Employees who work within the EPZ fall into two categories:

Those who live and work in the EPZ Those who live outside of the EPZ and commute to jobs within the EPZ.

Those of the first category are already counted as part of the permanent resident population. To avoid double counting, we focus only on those employees commuting from outside the EPZ who will evacuate along with the permanent resident population.

Data provided by Harrison and Washington counties as well as surveys of individual employers were used to estimate the number of employees commuting into the EPZ.

In Table E3, the Employees (Max Shift) is multiplied by the percent NonEPZ factor to determine the number of employees who are not residents of the EPZ. A vehicle occupancy of 1.07 employees per vehicle obtained from the telephone survey (See Figure F7) was used to determine the number of evacuating employee vehicles for all major employers.

Table 35 presents nonEPZ Resident employee and vehicle estimates by Sub Area. Figure 38 and Figure 39 present these data by sector.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 314 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 35. Summary of NonEPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles Employee Sub Area Employees Vehicles 1 1,080 1,009 2 629 588 3 105 98 4 0 0 5 0 0 10 0 0 11 0 0 12 0 0 13 26 24 14 0 0 TOTAL 1,840 1,719 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 315 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 316 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 317 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

3.5 Medical Facilities Data were provided by the counties for each of the medical facilities within the EPZ. Table E2 in Appendix E summarizes the data gathered. Section 8 details the evacuation of medical facilities and their patients. The number and type of evacuating vehicles that need to be provided depend on the patients' state of health. It is estimated that buses can transport up to 30 people; vans up to 10 people, wheelchair vans up to 12 people; and ambulances up to 2 people.

3.6 Total Demand in Addition to Permanent Population Vehicles will be traveling through the EPZ (externalexternal trips) at the time of an accident.

After the Advisory to Evacuate is announced, these throughtravelers will also evacuate. These through vehicles are assumed to travel on the major routes traversing the EPZ - I680 and I29.

It is assumed that this traffic will continue to enter the EPZ during the first 60 minutes following the Advisory to Evacuate.

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data was obtained from Federal Highway Administration to estimate the number of vehicles per hour on the aforementioned routes. The AADT was multiplied by the KFactor, which is the proportion of the AADT on a roadway segment or link during the design hour, resulting in the design hour volume (DHV). The design hour is usually the 30th highest hourly traffic volume of the year, measured in vehicles per hour (vph). The DHV is then multiplied by the DFactor, which is the proportion of the DHV occurring in the peak direction of travel (also known as the directional split). The resulting values are the directional design hourly volumes (DDHV), and are presented in Table 36, for each of the routes considered. The DDHV is then multiplied by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months (access control points - ACP - are assumed to be activated at 60 minutes after the advisory to evacuate) to estimate the total number of external vehicles loaded on the analysis network. As indicated, there are 3,213 vehicles entering the EPZ as externalexternal trips prior to the activation of the ACP and the diversion of this traffic. This number is reduced by 60% for evening scenarios (Scenarios 5 and

12) as discussed in Section 6.

3.7 Special Event One special event (Scenario 13) is considered for the ETE study - a plant outage at FCNS.

Outages may occur in spring or fall and typically last a month. Data obtained from emergency management personnel at FCNS indicate there are 725 employees onsite on weekends during an outage, 80% commute from outside the EPZ. Using a vehicle occupancy factor of 1.07 obtained from the telephone survey, there are a total of 542 vehicles at the plant during an outage that from outside of the EPZ. This represents an addition of 490 vehicles over the base weekend case. Special event vehicle trips were generated utilizing the same mobilization distributions as employees.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 318 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 36. FCNS EPZ External Traffic Up Dn Road HPMS1 K D Hourly External Direction Node Node Name AADT Factor2 Factor2 Volume Traffic 8003 3 I29 South 13,200 0.116 0.5 766 766 8033 33 I29 North 19,900 0.116 0.5 1,154 1,154 8044 44 I680 West 5,600 0.118 0.5 330 330 8071 71 I680 East 16,600 0.116 0.5 963 963 TOTAL: 3,213 1

Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, D.C., 2012 2

HCM 2010 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 319 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

3.8 Summary of Demand A summary of population and vehicle demand is provided in Table 37 and Table 38, respectively. This summary includes all population groups described in this section. Additional population groups - transitdependent, special facility and school population - are described in greater detail in Section 8. A total of 41,627 people and 23,870 vehicles are considered in this study.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 320 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 37. Summary of Population Demand Sub Transit Special Shadow External Residents Transients Employees Schools Total Area Dependent Facilities Population Traffic 1 668 11 0 1,080 0 0 0 0 1,759 2 9,672 165 259 629 236 2,320 0 0 13,281 3 2,933 50 270 105 32 535 0 0 3,925 4 3,069 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,121 5 273 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 278 10 26 0 900 0 0 0 0 0 926 11 148 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 151 12 428 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 435 13 2,986 51 445 26 210 934 0 0 4,652 14 131 2 399 0 0 0 0 0 532 Shadow 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,567 0 12,567 Total 20,334 346 2,273 1,840 478 3,789 12,567 0 41,627 1

The population at the Washington County Jail is included in the U.S. Census permanent resident population. For the purposes of this table, those 32 inmates are included with the Special Facility population.

NOTE: Shadow Population has been reduced to 20%. Refer to Figure 21 for additional information.

NOTE: Special Facilities include both medical facilities and correctional facilities.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 321 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 38. Summary of Vehicle Demand Sub Transit Special Shadow External Area Residents Dependent Transients Employees Facilities Schools Vehicles Traffic Total 1 359 2 0 1,009 0 0 0 0 1,370 2 5,219 10 154 588 24 92 0 0 6,087 3 1,580 2 45 98 4 20 0 0 1,749 4 1,644 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,648 5 149 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 151 10 14 2 315 0 0 0 0 0 331 11 82 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 12 234 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 236 13 1,611 2 249 24 21 34 0 0 1,941 14 72 2 234 0 0 0 0 0 308 Shadow 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,752 3,213 9,965 Total 10,964 30 997 1,719 49 146 6,752 3,213 23,870 NOTE: Buses represented as two passenger vehicles. Refer to Section 8 for additional information.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 322 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

4 ESTIMATION OF HIGHWAY CAPACITY The ability of the road network to service vehicle demand is a major factor in determining how rapidly an evacuation can be completed. The capacity of a road is defined as the maximum hourly rate at which persons or vehicles can reasonably be expected to traverse a point or uniform section of a lane of roadway during a given time period under prevailing roadway, traffic and control conditions, as stated in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010).

In discussing capacity, different operating conditions have been assigned alphabetical designations, A through F, to reflect the range of traffic operational characteristics. These designations have been termed "Levels of Service" (LOS). For example, LOS A connotes freeflow and highspeed operating conditions; LOS F represents a forced flow condition. LOS E describes traffic operating at or near capacity.

Another concept, closely associated with capacity, is Service Volume (SV). Service volume is defined as The maximum hourly rate at which vehicles, bicycles or persons reasonably can be expected to traverse a point or uniform section of a roadway during an hour under specific assumed conditions while maintaining a designated level of service. This definition is similar to that for capacity. The major distinction is that values of SV vary from one LOS to another, while capacity is the service volume at the upper bound of LOS E, only.

This distinction is illustrated in Exhibit 1117 of the HCM 2010. As indicated there, the SV varies with Free Flow Speed (FFS), and LOS. The SV is calculated by the DYNEV II simulation model, based on the specified link attributes, FFS, capacity, control device and traffic demand.

Other factors also influence capacity. These include, but are not limited to:

Lane width Shoulder width Pavement condition Horizontal and vertical alignment (curvature and grade)

Percent truck traffic Control device (and timing, if it is a signal)

Weather conditions (rain, snow, fog, wind speed, ice)

These factors are considered during the road survey and in the capacity estimation process; some factors have greater influence on capacity than others. For example, lane and shoulder width have only a limited influence on Base Free Flow Speed (BFFS1) according to Exhibit 157 of the HCM. Consequently, lane and shoulder widths at the narrowest points were observed during the road survey and these observations were recorded, but no detailed measurements of lane or shoulder width were taken. Horizontal and vertical alignment can influence both FFS and capacity. The estimated FFS were measured using the survey vehicles speedometer and observing local traffic, under free flow conditions. Capacity is estimated from the procedures of 1

A very rough estimate of BFFS might be taken as the posted speed limit plus 10 mph (HCM 2010 Page 1515)

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 41 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

the 2010 HCM. For example, HCM Exhibit 71(b) shows the sensitivity of Service Volume at the upper bound of LOS D to grade (capacity is the Service Volume at the upper bound of LOS E).

As discussed in Section 2.3, it is necessary to adjust capacity figures to represent the prevailing conditions during inclement weather. Based on limited empirical data, weather conditions such as rain reduce the values of free speed and of highway capacity by approximately 10 percent. Over the last decade new studies have been made on the effects of rain on traffic capacity. These studies indicate a range of effects between 5 and 20 percent depending on wind speed and precipitation rates. As indicated in Section 2.3, we employ a reduction in free speed and in highway capacity of 10 percent and 20 percent for rain and snow, respectively.

Since congestion arising from evacuation may be significant, estimates of roadway capacity must be determined with great care. Because of its importance, a brief discussion of the major factors that influence highway capacity is presented in this section.

Rural highways generally consist of: (1) one or more uniform sections with limited access (driveways, parking areas) characterized by uninterrupted flow; and (2) approaches to at grade intersections where flow can be interrupted by a control device or by turning or crossing traffic at the intersection. Due to these differences, separate estimates of capacity must be made for each section. Often, the approach to the intersection is widened by the addition of one or more lanes (turn pockets or turn bays), to compensate for the lower capacity of the approach due to the factors there that can interrupt the flow of traffic. These additional lanes are recorded during the field survey and later entered as input to the DYNEV II system.

4.1 Capacity Estimations on Approaches to Intersections Atgrade intersections are apt to become the first bottleneck locations under local heavy traffic volume conditions. This characteristic reflects the need to allocate access time to the respective competing traffic streams by exerting some form of control. During evacuation, control at critical intersections will often be provided by traffic control personnel assigned for that purpose, whose directions may supersede traffic control devices. The existing traffic management plans documented in the county emergency plans are extensive and were adopted without change.

The perlane capacity of an approach to a signalized intersection can be expressed (simplistically) in the following form:

3600 3600 where:

Qcap,m = Capacity of a single lane of traffic on an approach, which executes Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 42 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

movement, m, upon entering the intersection; vehicles per hour (vph) hm = Mean queue discharge headway of vehicles on this lane that are executing movement, m; seconds per vehicle G = Mean duration of GREEN time servicing vehicles that are executing movement, m, for each signal cycle; seconds L = Mean "lost time" for each signal phase servicing movement, m; seconds C = Duration of each signal cycle; seconds Pm = Proportion of GREEN time allocated for vehicles executing movement, m, from this lane. This value is specified as part of the control treatment.

m = The movement executed by vehicles after they enter the intersection: through, leftturn, rightturn, and diagonal.

The turnmovementspecific mean discharge headway hm, depends in a complex way upon many factors: roadway geometrics, turn percentages, the extent of conflicting traffic streams, the control treatment, and others. A primary factor is the value of "saturation queue discharge headway", hsat, which applies to through vehicles that are not impeded by other conflicting traffic streams. This value, itself, depends upon many factors including motorist behavior.

Formally, we can write, where:

hsat = Saturation discharge headway for through vehicles; seconds per vehicle F1,F2 = The various known factors influencing hm fm( ) = Complex function relating hm to the known (or estimated) values of hsat, F1, F2, The estimation of hm for specified values of hsat, F1, F2, ... is undertaken within the DYNEV II simulation model by a mathematical model2. The resulting values for hm always satisfy the condition:

2 Lieberman, E., "Determining Lateral Deployment of Traffic on an Approach to an Intersection", McShane, W. &

Lieberman, E., "Service Rates of Mixed Traffic on the far Left Lane of an Approach". Both papers appear in Transportation Research Record 772, 1980. Lieberman, E., Xin, W., Macroscopic Traffic Modeling For LargeScale Evacuation Planning, presented at the TRB 2012 Annual Meeting, January 2226, 2012 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 43 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

That is, the turnmovementspecific discharge headways are always greater than, or equal to the saturation discharge headway for through vehicles. These headways (or its inverse equivalent, saturation flow rate), may be determined by observation or using the procedures of the HCM 2010.

The above discussion is necessarily brief given the scope of this ETE report and the complexity of the subject of intersection capacity. In fact, Chapters 18, 19 and 20 in the HCM 2010 address this topic. The factors, F1, F2,, influencing saturation flow rate are identified in equation (185) of the HCM 2010.

The traffic signals within the EPZ and Shadow Region are modeled using representative phasing plans and phase durations obtained as part of the field data collection. Traffic responsive signal installations allow the proportion of green time allocated (Pm) for each approach to each intersection to be determined by the expected traffic volumes on each approach during evacuation circumstances. The amount of green time (G) allocated is subject to maximum and minimum phase duration constraints; 2 seconds of yellow time are indicated for each signal phase and 1 second of allred time is assigned between signal phases, typically. If a signal is pre timed, the yellow and allred times observed during the road survey are used. A lost time (L) of 2.0 seconds is used for each signal phase in the analysis.

4.2 Capacity Estimation along Sections of Highway The capacity of highway sections as distinct from approaches to intersections is a function of roadway geometrics, traffic composition (e.g. percent heavy trucks and buses in the traffic stream) and, of course, motorist behavior. There is a fundamental relationship which relates service volume (i.e. the number of vehicles serviced within a uniform highway section in a given time period) to traffic density. The top curve in Figure 41 illustrates this relationship.

As indicated, there are two flow regimes: (1) Free Flow (left side of curve); and (2) Forced Flow (right side). In the Free Flow regime, the traffic demand is fully serviced; the service volume increases as demand volume and density increase, until the service volume attains its maximum value, which is the capacity of the highway section. As traffic demand and the resulting highway density increase beyond this "critical" value, the rate at which traffic can be serviced (i.e. the service volume) can actually decline below capacity (capacity drop). Therefore, in order to realistically represent traffic performance during congested conditions (i.e. when demand exceeds capacity), it is necessary to estimate the service volume, VF, under congested conditions.

The value of VF can be expressed as:

where:

R = Reduction factor which is less than unity Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 44 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

We have employed a value of R=0.90. The advisability of such a capacity reduction factor is based upon empirical studies that identified a falloff in the service flow rate when congestion occurs at bottlenecks or choke points on a freeway system. Zhang and Levinson3 describe a research program that collected data from a computerbased surveillance system (loop detectors) installed on the Interstate Highway System, at 27 active bottlenecks in the twin cities metro area in Minnesota over a 7week period. When flow breakdown occurs, queues are formed which discharge at lower flow rates than the maximum capacity prior to observed breakdown. These queue discharge flow (QDF) rates vary from one location to the next and also vary by day of week and time of day based upon local circumstances. The cited reference presents a mean QDF of 2,016 passenger cars per hour per lane (pcphpl). This figure compares with the nominal capacity estimate of 2,250 pcphpl estimated for the ETE and indicated in Appendix K for freeway links. The ratio of these two numbers is 0.896 which translates into a capacity reduction factor of 0.90.

Since the principal objective of evacuation time estimate analyses is to develop a realistic estimate of evacuation times, use of the representative value for this capacity reduction factor (R=0.90) is justified. This factor is applied only when flow breaks down, as determined by the simulation model.

Rural roads, like freeways, are classified as uninterrupted flow facilities. (This is in contrast with urban street systems which have closely spaced signalized intersections and are classified as interrupted flow facilities.) As such, traffic flow along rural roads is subject to the same effects as freeways in the event traffic demand exceeds the nominal capacity, resulting in queuing and lower QDF rates. As a practical matter, rural roads rarely break down at locations away from intersections. Any breakdowns on rural roads are generally experienced at intersections where other model logic applies, or at lane drops which reduce capacity there.

Therefore, the application of a factor of 0.90 is appropriate on rural roads, but rarely, if ever, activated.

The estimated value of capacity is based primarily upon the type of facility and on roadway geometrics. Sections of roadway with adverse geometrics are characterized by lower freeflow speeds and lane capacity. Exhibit 1530 in the Highway Capacity Manual was referenced to estimate saturation flow rates. The impact of narrow lanes and shoulders on freeflow speed and on capacity is not material, particularly when flow is predominantly in one direction as is the case during an evacuation.

The procedure used here was to estimate "section" capacity, VE, based on observations made traveling over each section of the evacuation network, based on the posted speed limits and travel behavior of other motorists and by reference to the 2010 HCM. The DYNEV II simulation model determines for each highway section, represented as a network link, whether its capacity would be limited by the "sectionspecific" service volume, VE, or by the intersectionspecific capacity. For each link, the model selects the lower value of capacity.

3 Lei Zhang and David Levinson, Some Properties of Flows at Freeway Bottlenecks, Transportation Research Record 1883, 2004.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 45 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

4.3 Application to the FCNS Study Area As part of the development of the linknode analysis network for the study area, an estimate of roadway capacity is required. The source material for the capacity estimates presented herein is contained in:

2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)

Transportation Research Board National Research Council Washington, D.C.

The highway system in the study area consists primarily of three categories of roads and, of course, intersections:

TwoLane roads: Local, State MultiLane Highways (atgrade)

Freeways Each of these classifications will be discussed.

4.3.1 TwoLane Roads Ref: HCM Chapter 15 Two lane roads comprise the majority of highways within the EPZ. The perlane capacity of a twolane highway is estimated at 1700 passenger cars per hour (pc/h). This estimate is essentially independent of the directional distribution of traffic volume except that, for extended distances, the twoway capacity will not exceed 3200 pc/h. The HCM procedures then estimate Level of Service (LOS) and Average Travel Speed. The DYNEV II simulation model accepts the specified value of capacity as input and computes average speed based on the timevarying demand: capacity relations.

Based on the field survey and on expected traffic operations associated with evacuation scenarios:

Most sections of twolane roads within the EPZ are classified as Class I, with "level terrain"; some are rolling terrain.

Class II highways are mostly those within urban and suburban centers.

4.3.2 MultiLane Highway Ref: HCM Chapter 14 Exhibit 142 of the HCM 2010 presents a set of curves that indicate a perlane capacity ranging from approximately 1900 to 2200 pc/h, for freespeeds of 45 to 60 mph, respectively. Based on observation, the multilane highways outside of urban areas within the EPZ service traffic with freespeeds in this range. The actual timevarying speeds computed by the simulation model reflect the demand: capacity relationship and the impact of control at intersections. A Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 46 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

conservative estimate of perlane capacity of 1900 pc/h is adopted for this study for multilane highways outside of urban areas, as shown in Appendix K.

4.3.3 Freeways Ref: HCM Chapters 10, 11, 12, 13 Chapter 10 of the HCM 2010 describes a procedure for integrating the results obtained in Chapters 11, 12 and 13, which compute capacity and LOS for freeway components. Chapter 10 also presents a discussion of simulation models. The DYNEV II simulation model automatically performs this integration process.

Chapter 11 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for Basic Freeway Segments". Exhibit 1117 of the HCM 2010 presents capacity vs. free speed estimates, which are provided below.

Free Speed (mph): 55 60 65 70+

PerLane Capacity (pc/h): 2250 2300 2350 2400 The inputs to the simulation model are highway geometrics, freespeeds and capacity based on field observations. The simulation logic calculates actual timevarying speeds based on demand:

capacity relationships. A conservative estimate of perlane capacity of 2250 pc/h is adopted for this study for freeways, as shown in Appendix K.

Chapter 12 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacity, speed, density and LOS for freeway weaving sections. The simulation model contains logic that relates speed to demand volume: capacity ratio. The value of capacity obtained from the computational procedures detailed in Chapter 12 depends on the "Type" and geometrics of the weaving segment and on the "Volume Ratio" (ratio of weaving volume to total volume).

Chapter 13 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacities of ramps and of "merge" areas. There are three significant factors to the determination of capacity of a ramp freeway junction: The capacity of the freeway immediately downstream of an onramp or immediately upstream of an offramp; the capacity of the ramp roadway; and the maximum flow rate entering the ramp influence area. In most cases, the freeway capacity is the controlling factor. Values of this merge area capacity are presented in Exhibit 138 of the HCM 2010, and depend on the number of freeway lanes and on the freeway free speed. Ramp capacity is presented in Exhibit 1310 and is a function of the ramp free flow speed. The DYNEV II simulation model logic simulates the merging operations of the ramp and freeway traffic in accord with the procedures in Chapter 13 of the HCM 2010. If congestion results from an excess of demand relative to capacity, then the model allocates service appropriately to the two entering traffic streams and produces LOS F conditions (The HCM does not address LOS F explicitly).

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 47 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

4.3.4 Intersections Ref: HCM Chapters 18, 19, 20, 21 Procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for approaches to intersections are presented in Chapter 18 (signalized intersections), Chapters 19, 20 (unsignalized intersections) and Chapter 21 (roundabouts). The complexity of these computations is indicated by the aggregate length of these chapters. The DYNEV II simulation logic is likewise complex.

The simulation model explicitly models intersections: Stop/yield controlled intersections (both 2way and allway) and traffic signal controlled intersections. Where intersections are controlled by fixed time controllers, traffic signal timings are set to reflect average (non evacuation) traffic conditions. Actuated traffic signal settings respond to the timevarying demands of evacuation traffic to adjust the relative capacities of the competing intersection approaches.

The model is also capable of modeling the presence of manned traffic control. At specific locations where it is advisable or where existing plans call for overriding existing traffic control to implement manned control, the model will use actuated signal timings that reflect the presence of traffic guides. At locations where a special traffic control strategy (continuous left turns, contraflow lanes) is used, the strategy is modeled explicitly. Where applicable, the location and type of traffic control for nodes in the evacuation network are noted in Appendix K. The characteristics of the ten highest volume signalized intersections are detailed in Appendix J.

4.4 Simulation and Capacity Estimation Chapter 6 of the HCM is entitled, HCM and Alternative Analysis Tools. The chapter discusses the use of alternative tools such as simulation modeling to evaluate the operational performance of highway networks. Among the reasons cited in Chapter 6 to consider using simulation as an alternative analysis tool is:

The system under study involves a group of different facilities or travel modes with mutual interactions invoking several procedural chapters of the HCM. Alternative tools are able to analyze these facilities as a single system.

This statement succinctly describes the analyses required to determine traffic operations across an area encompassing an EPZ operating under evacuation conditions. The model utilized for this study, DYNEV II, is further described in Appendix C. It is essential to recognize that simulation models do not replicate the methodology and procedures of the HCM - they replace these procedures by describing the complex interactions of traffic flow and computing Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) detailing the operational performance of traffic over time and by location. The DYNEV II simulation model includes some HCM 2010 procedures only for the purpose of estimating capacity.

All simulation models must be calibrated properly with field observations that quantify the performance parameters applicable to the analysis network. Two of the most important of Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 48 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

these are: (1) Free flow speed (FFS); and (2) saturation headway, hsat. The first of these is estimated by direct observation during the road survey; the second is estimated using the concepts of the HCM 2010, as described earlier. These parameters are listed in Appendix K, for each network link.

Volume, vph Capacity Drop Qmax R Qmax Qs Density, vpm Flow Regimes Speed, mph Free Forced vf R vc Density, vpm kf kopt kj ks Figure 41. Fundamental Diagrams Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 49 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME Federal Government guidelines (see NUREG CR7002) specify that the planner estimate the distributions of elapsed times associated with mobilization activities undertaken by the public to prepare for the evacuation trip. The elapsed time associated with each activity is represented as a statistical distribution reflecting differences between members of the public.

The quantification of these activitybased distributions relies largely on the results of the telephone survey. We define the sum of these distributions of elapsed times as the Trip Generation Time Distribution.

5.1 Background In general, an accident at a nuclear power plant is characterized by the following Emergency Classification Levels (see Appendix 1 of NUREG 0654 for details):

1. Unusual Event

2. Alert

3. Site Area Emergency

4. General Emergency At each level, the Federal guidelines specify a set of Actions to be undertaken by the Licensee, and by State and Local offsite authorities. As a Planning Basis, we will adopt a conservative posture, in accordance with Section 1.2 of NUREG/CR7002, that a rapidly escalating accident will be considered in calculating the Trip Generation Time. We will assume:

1. The Advisory to Evacuate will be announced coincident with the siren notification.

2. Mobilization of the general population will commence within 15 minutes after the siren notification.

3. ETE are measured relative to the Advisory to Evacuate.

We emphasize that the adoption of this planning basis is not a representation that these events will occur within the indicated time frame. Rather, these assumptions are necessary in order to:

1. Establish a temporal framework for estimating the Trip Generation distribution in the format recommended in Section 2.13 of NUREG/CR6863.

2. Identify temporal points of reference that uniquely define "Clear Time" and ETE.

It is likely that a longer time will elapse between the various classes of an emergency.

For example, suppose one hour elapses from the siren alert to the Advisory to Evacuate. In this case, it is reasonable to expect some degree of spontaneous evacuation by the public during this onehour period. As a result, the population within the EPZ will be lower when the Advisory to Evacuate is announced, than at the time of the siren alert. In addition, many will engage in preparation activities to evacuate, in anticipation that an Advisory will be broadcast.

Thus, the time needed to complete the mobilization activities and the number of people remaining to evacuate the EPZ after the Advisory to Evacuate, will both be somewhat less than Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 51 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

the estimates presented in this report. Consequently, the ETE presented in this report are higher than the actual evacuation time, if this hypothetical situation were to take place.

The notification process consists of two events:

1. Transmitting information using the alert notification systems available within the EPZ (e.g. sirens, tone alerts, EAS broadcasts, loud speakers).

2. Receiving and correctly interpreting the information that is transmitted.

The population within the EPZ is dispersed over an area of 321 square miles and is engaged in a wide variety of activities. It must be anticipated that some time will elapse between the transmission and receipt of the information advising the public of an accident.

The amount of elapsed time will vary from one individual to the next depending on where that person is, what that person is doing, and related factors. Furthermore, some persons who will be directly involved with the evacuation process may be outside the EPZ at the time the emergency is declared. These people may be commuters, shoppers and other travelers who reside within the EPZ and who will return to join the other household members upon receiving notification of an emergency.

As indicated in Section 2.13 of NUREG/CR6863, the estimated elapsed times for the receipt of notification can be expressed as a distribution reflecting the different notification times for different people within, and outside, the EPZ. By using time distributions, it is also possible to distinguish between different population groups and different dayofweek and timeofday scenarios, so that accurate ETE may be computed.

For example, people at home or at work within the EPZ will be notified by siren, and/or tone alert and/or radio (if available). Those well outside the EPZ will be notified by telephone, radio, TV and wordofmouth, with potentially longer time lags. Furthermore, the spatial distribution of the EPZ population will differ with time of day families will be united in the evenings, but dispersed during the day. In this respect, weekends will differ from weekdays.

As indicated in Section 4.1 of NUREG/CR7002, the information required to compute trip generation times is typically obtained from a telephone survey of EPZ residents. Such a survey was conducted in support of this ETE study. Appendix F presents the survey sampling plan, survey instrument, and raw survey results. It is important to note that the shape and duration of the evacuation trip mobilization distribution is important at sites where traffic congestion is not expected to cause the evacuation time estimate to extend in time well beyond the trip generation period. The remaining discussion will focus on the application of the trip generation data obtained from the telephone survey to the development of the ETE documented in this report.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 52 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

5.2 Fundamental Considerations The environment leading up to the time that people begin their evacuation trips consists of a sequence of events and activities. Each event (other than the first) occurs at an instant in time and is the outcome of an activity.

Activities are undertaken over a period of time. Activities may be in "series" (i.e. to undertake an activity implies the completion of all preceding events) or may be in parallel (two or more activities may take place over the same period of time). Activities conducted in series are functionally dependent on the completion of prior activities; activities conducted in parallel are functionally independent of one another. The relevant events associated with the public's preparation for evacuation are:

Event Number Event Description 1 Notification 2 Awareness of Situation 3 Depart Work 4 Arrive Home 5 Depart on Evacuation Trip Associated with each sequence of events are one or more activities, as outlined below:

Table 51. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities Event Sequence Activity Distribution 12 Receive Notification 1 23 Prepare to Leave Work 2 2,3 4 Travel Home 3 2,4 5 Prepare to Leave to Evacuate 4 N/A Snow Clearance 5 These relationships are shown graphically in Figure 51.

An Event is a state that exists at a point in time (e.g., depart work, arrive home)

An Activity is a process that takes place over some elapsed time (e.g., prepare to leave work, travel home)

As such, a completed Activity changes the state of an individual (e.g. the activity, travel home changes the state from depart work to arrive home). Therefore, an Activity can be described as an Event Sequence; the elapsed times to perform an event sequence vary from one person to the next and are described as statistical distributions on the following pages.

An employee who lives outside the EPZ will follow sequence (c) of Figure 51. A household Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 53 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

within the EPZ that has one or more commuters at work, and will await their return before beginning the evacuation trip will follow the first sequence of Figure 51(a). A household within the EPZ that has no commuters at work, or that will not await the return of any commuters, will follow the second sequence of Figure 51(a), regardless of day of week or time of day.

Households with no commuters on weekends, or in the evening/nighttime, will follow the applicable sequence in Figure 51(b). Transients will always follow one of the sequences of Figure 51(b). Some transients away from their residence could elect to evacuate immediately without returning to the residence, as indicated in the second sequence.

It is seen from Figure 51, that the Trip Generation time (i.e. the total elapsed time from Event 1 to Event 5) depends on the scenario and will vary from one household to the next.

Furthermore, Event 5 depends, in a complicated way, on the time distributions of all activities preceding that event. That is, to estimate the time distribution of Event 5, we must obtain estimates of the time distributions of all preceding events. For this study, we adopt the conservative posture that all activities will occur in sequence.

In some cases, assuming certain events occur strictly sequential (for instance, commuter returning home before beginning preparation to leave, or removing snow only after the preparation to leave) can result in rather conservative (that is, longer) estimates of mobilization times. It is reasonable to expect that at least some parts of these events will overlap for many households, but that assumption is not made in this study.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 54 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

1 2 3 4 5 Residents Households wait 1

for Commuters Households without Residents 1 2 5 Commuters and households who do not wait for Commuters (a) Accident occurs during midweek, at midday; year round Residents, Transients 1 2 4 5 Return to residence, away from then evacuate Residence Residents, 1 2 5 Residents at home; Transients at transients evacuate directly Residence (b) Accident occurs during weekend or during the evening2 1 2 3, 5 (c) Employees who live outside the EPZ ACTIVITIES EVENTS 1 2 Receive Notification 1. Notification 2 3 Prepare to Leave Work 2. Aware of situation 2, 3 4 Travel Home 3. Depart work 2, 4 5 Prepare to Leave to Evacuate 4. Arrive home

5. Depart on evacuation trip Activities Consume Time 1

Applies for evening and weekends also if commuters are at work.

2 Applies throughout the year for transients.

Figure 51. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 55 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

5.3 Estimated Time Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5 The time distribution of an event is obtained by "summing" the time distributions of all prior contributing activities. (This "summing" process is quite different than an algebraic sum since it is performed on distributions - not scalar numbers).

Time Distribution No. 1, Notification Process: Activity 1 2 In accordance with the 2012 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program Manual, 100% of the population is notified within 45 minutes.

It is assumed (based on the presence of sirens within the EPZ) that 87 percent of those within the EPZ will be aware of the accident within 30 minutes with the remainder notified within the following 15 minutes. The notification distribution is given below:

Table 52. Time Distribution for Notifying the Public Elapsed Time Percent of (Minutes) Population Notified 0 0%

5 7%

10 13%

15 27%

20 47%

25 66%

30 87%

35 92%

40 97%

45 100%

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 56 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Distribution No. 2, Prepare to Leave Work: Activity 2 3 It is reasonable to expect that the vast majority of business enterprises within the EPZ will elect to shut down following notification and most employees would leave work quickly. Commuters, who work outside the EPZ could, in all probability, also leave quickly since facilities outside the EPZ would remain open and other personnel would remain. Personnel or farmers responsible for equipment/livestock would require additional time to secure their facility. The distribution of Activity 2 3 shown in Table 53 reflects data obtained by the telephone survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 52.

Table 53. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work Cumulative Cumulative Percent Percent Elapsed Time Employees Elapsed Time Employees (Minutes) Leaving Work (Minutes) Leaving Work 0 0.0% 35 93.7%

5 46.6% 40 94.0%

10 69.5% 45 95.8%

15 78.7% 50 96.4%

20 84.1% 55 96.7%

25 84.1% 60 100.0%

30 93.7%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response. That is, the sample was reduced in size to include only those households who responded to this question. The underlying assumption is that the distribution of this activity for the Dont know responders, if the event takes place, would be the same as those responders who provided estimates.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 57 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Distribution No. 3, Travel Home: Activity 3 4 These data are provided directly by those households which responded to the telephone survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 52 and listed in Table 54.

Table 54. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home Cumulative Cumulative Elapsed Time Percent Elapsed Time Percent (Minutes) Returning Home (Minutes) Returning Home 0 0.0% 35 85.0%

5 16.4% 40 91.5%

10 31.4% 45 97.1%

15 43.4% 50 97.5%

20 52.8% 55 97.5%

25 59.1% 60 99.1%

30 81.4% 75 100.0%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 58 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Distribution No. 4, Prepare to Leave Home: Activity 2, 4 5 These data are provided directly by those households which responded to the telephone survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 52 and listed in Table 55.

Table 55. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate Cumulative Elapsed Time Percent Ready to (Minutes) Evacuate 0 0.0%

15 20.0%

30 62.3%

45 69.0%

60 85.9%

75 88.9%

90 89.8%

105 90.5%

120 96.5%

135 98.7%

150 98.9%

165 98.9%

180 99.6%

195 100.0%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 59 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Distribution No. 5, Snow Clearance Time Distribution Inclement weather scenarios involving snowfall must address the time lags associated with snow clearance. It is assumed that snow equipment is mobilized and deployed during the snowfall to maintain passable roads. The general consensus is that the snowplowing efforts are generally successful for all but the most extreme blizzards when the rate of snow accumulation exceeds that of snow clearance over a period of many hours.

Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that the highway system will remain passable - albeit at a lower capacity - under the vast majority of snow conditions. Nevertheless, for the vehicles to gain access to the highway system, it may be necessary for driveways and employee parking lots to be cleared to the extent needed to permit vehicles to gain access to the roadways.

These clearance activities take time; this time must be incorporated into the trip generation time distributions. These data are provided by those households which responded to the telephone survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 52 and listed in Table 56.

Note that those respondents (43.3%) who answered that they would not take time to clear their driveway were assumed to be ready immediately at the start of this activity. Essentially they would drive through the snow on the driveway to access the roadway and begin their evacuation trip.

Table 56. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"8" of Snow Cumulative Percent Elapsed Time Completing (Minutes) Snow Removal 0 43.3%

15 56.6%

30 80.5%

45 84.0%

60 91.1%

75 92.5%

90 94.0%

105 94.0%

120 97.3%

135 97.9%

150 98.1%

165 98.3%

180 100.0%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 510 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Mobilization Activities 100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

Notification 50% Prepare to Leave Work Travel Home 40%

Prepare Home

% Completing Activity 30%

Time to Clear Snow 20%

10%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 Elapsed Time from Start of Mobilization Activity (min)

Figure 52. Evacuation Mobilization Activities Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 511 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Time Distribution The time distributions for each of the mobilization activities presented herein must be combined to form the appropriate Trip Generation Distributions. As discussed above, this study assumes that the stated events take place in sequence such that all preceding events must be completed before the current event can occur. For example, if a household awaits the return of a commuter, the worktohome trip (Activity 3 4) must precede Activity 4 5.

To calculate the time distribution of an event that is dependent on two sequential activities, it is necessary to sum the distributions associated with these prior activities. The distribution summing algorithm is applied repeatedly as shown to form the required distribution. As an outcome of this procedure, new time distributions are formed; we assign letter designations to these intermediate distributions to describe the procedure. Table 57 presents the summing procedure to arrive at each designated distribution.

Table 57. Mapping Distributions to Events Apply Summing Algorithm To: Distribution Obtained Event Defined Distributions 1 and 2 Distribution A Event 3 Distributions A and 3 Distribution B Event 4 Distributions B and 4 Distribution C Event 5 Distributions 1 and 4 Distribution D Event 5 Distributions C and 5 Distribution E Event 5 Distributions D and 5 Distribution F Event 5 Table 58 presents a description of each of the final trip generation distributions achieved after the summing process is completed.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 512 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 58. Description of the Distributions Distribution Description Time distribution of commuters departing place of work (Event 3). Also applies A to employees who work within the EPZ who live outside, and to Transients within the EPZ.

B Time distribution of commuters arriving home (Event 4).

Time distribution of residents with commuters who return home, leaving home C

to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).

Time distribution of residents without commuters returning home, leaving home D

to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).

Time distribution of residents with commuters who return home, leaving home E

to begin the evacuation trip, after snow clearance activities (Event 5).

Time distribution of residents with no commuters returning home, leaving to F

begin the evacuation trip, after snow clearance activities (Event 5).

5.4.1 Statistical Outliers As already mentioned, some portion of the survey respondents answer dont know to some questions or choose to not respond to a question. The mobilization activity distributions are based upon actual responses. But, it is the nature of surveys that a few numeric responses are inconsistent with the overall pattern of results. An example would be a case in which for 500 responses, almost all of them estimate less than two hours for a given answer, but 3 say four hours and 4 say six or more hours.

These outliers must be considered: are they valid responses, or so atypical that they should be dropped from the sample?

In assessing outliers, there are three alternates to consider:

1) Some responses with very long times may be valid, but reflect the reality that the respondent really needs to be classified in a different population subgroup, based upon special needs;

2) Other responses may be unrealistic (6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months to return home from commuting distance, or 2 days to prepare the home for departure);

3) Some high values are representative and plausible, and one must not cut them as part of the consideration of outliers.

The issue of course is how to make the decision that a given response or set of responses are to be considered outliers for the component mobilization activities, using a method that objectively quantifies the process.

There is considerable statistical literature on the identification and treatment of outliers singly or in groups, much of which assumes the data is normally distributed and some of which uses non Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 513 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

parametric methods to avoid that assumption. The literature cites that limited work has been done directly on outliers in sample survey responses.

In establishing the overall mobilization time/trip generation distributions, the following principles are used:

1) It is recognized that the overall trip generation distributions are conservative estimates, because they assume a household will do the mobilization activities sequentially, with no overlap of activities;

2) The individual mobilization activities (prepare to leave work, travel home, prepare home, clear snow) are reviewed for outliers, and then the overall trip generation distributions are created (see Figure 51, Table 57, Table 58);

3) Outliers can be eliminated either because the response reflects a special population (e.g.

special needs, transit dependent) or lack of realism, because the purpose is to estimate trip generation patterns for personal vehicles;

4) To eliminate outliers, a) the mean and standard deviation of the specific activity are estimated from the responses, b) the median of the same data is estimated, with its position relative to the mean noted, c) the histogram of the data is inspected, and d) all values greater than 3.5 standard deviations are flagged for attention, taking special note of whether there are gaps (categories with zero entries) in the histogram display.

In general, only flagged values more than 4 standard deviations from the mean are allowed to be considered outliers, with gaps in the histogram expected.

When flagged values are classified as outliers and dropped, steps a to d are repeated.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 514 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

5) As a practical matter, even with outliers eliminated by the above, the resultant histogram, viewed as a cumulative distribution, is not a normal distribution. A typical situation that results is shown below in Figure 53.

100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

Cumulative Percentage (%)

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

112.5 2.5 7.5 12.5 17.5 22.5 27.5 32.5 37.5 42.5 47.5 52.5 57.5 67.5 82.5 97.5 Center of Interval (minutes)

Cumulative Data Cumulative Normal Figure 53. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution

6) In particular, the cumulative distribution differs from the normal distribution in two key aspects, both very important in loading a network to estimate evacuation times:

Most of the real data is to the left of the normal curve above, indicating that the network loads faster for the first 8085% of the vehicles, potentially causing more (and earlier) congestion than otherwise modeled; The last 1015% of the real data tails off slower than the comparable normal curve, indicating that there is significant traffic still loading at later times.

Because these two features are important to preserve, it is the histogram of the data that is used to describe the mobilization activities, not a normal curve fit to the data. One could consider other distributions, but using the shape of the actual data curve is unambiguous and preserves these important features;

7) With the mobilization activities each modeled according to Steps 16, including preserving the features cited in Step 6, the overall (or total) mobilization times are constructed.

This is done by using the data sets and distributions under different scenarios (e.g. commuter returning, no commuter returning, no snow or snow in each). In general, these are additive, using Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 515 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

weighting based upon the probability distributions of each element; Figure 54 presents the combined trip generation distributions designated A, C, D, E and F. These distributions are presented on the same time scale. (As discussed earlier, the use of strictly additive activities is a conservative approach, because it makes all activities sequential - preparation for departure follows the return of the commuter; snow clearance follows the preparation for departure, and so forth. In practice, it is reasonable that some of these activities are done in parallel, at least to some extent - for instance, preparation to depart begins by a household member at home while the commuter is still on the road.)

The mobilization distributions that result are used in their tabular/graphical form as direct inputs to later computations that lead to the ETE.

The DYNEV II simulation model is designed to accept varying rates of vehicle trip generation for each origin centroid, expressed in the form of histograms. These histograms, which represent Distributions A, C, D, E and F, properly displaced with respect to one another, are tabulated in Table 59 (Distribution B, Arrive Home, omitted for clarity).

The final time period (15) is 600 minutes long. This time period is added to allow the analysis network to clear, in the event congestion persists beyond the trip generation period. Note that there are no trips generated during this final time period.

5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation As defined in NUREG/CR7002, staged evacuation consists of the following:

1. Sub Area comprising the 2 mile region are advised to evacuate immediately

2. Sub Area comprising regions extending from 2 to 5 miles downwind are advised to shelter inplace while the 2 mile region is cleared

3. As vehicles evacuate the 2 mile region, sheltered people from 2 to 5 miles downwind continue preparation for evacuation

4. The population sheltering in the 2 to 5 mile region are advised to begin evacuating when approximately 90% of those originally within the 2 mile region evacuate across the 2 mile region boundary

5. Noncompliance with the shelter recommendation is the same as the shadow evacuation percentage of 20%

Assumptions

1. The EPZ population in Sub Area beyond 5 miles will react as does the population in the 2 to 5 mile region; that is they will first shelter, then evacuate after the 90th percentile ETE for the 2 mile region

2. The population in the shadow region beyond the EPZ boundary, extending to approximately 15 miles radially from the plant, will react as they do for all nonstaged evacuation scenarios. That is 20% of these households will elect to evacuate with no shelter delay.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 516 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

3. The transient population will not be expected to stage their evacuation because of the limited sheltering options available to people who may be at parks, on a beach, or at other venues. Also, notifying the transient population of a staged evacuation would prove difficult.

4. Employees will also be assumed to evacuate without first sheltering.

Procedure

1. Trip generation for population groups in the 2 mile region will be as computed based upon the results of the telephone survey and analysis.

2. Trip generation for the population subject to staged evacuation will be formulated as follows:

a. Identify the 90th percentile evacuation time for the Sub Area comprising the two mile region. This value, TScen*, is obtained from simulation results. It will become the time at which the region being sheltered will be told to evacuate for each scenario.

b. The resultant trip generation curves for staging are then formed as follows:

i. The nonshelter trip generation curve is followed until a maximum of 20%

of the total trips are generated (to account for shelter noncompliance).

ii. No additional trips are generated until time TScen*

iii. Following time TScen*, the balance of trips are generated:

1. by stepping up and then following the nonshelter trip generation curve (if TScen* is < max trip generation time) or

2. by stepping up to 100% (if TScen* is > max trip generation time)

c. Note: This procedure implies that there may be different staged trip generation distributions for different scenarios. NUREG/CR7002 uses the statement approximately 90th percentile as the time to end staging and begin evacuating.

The value of TScen* is 1:15 for nonsnow scenarios and 1:45 for snow scenarios.

3. Staged trip generation distributions are created for the following population groups:

a. Residents with returning commuters

b. Residents without returning commuters

c. Residents with returning commuters and snow conditions

d. Residents without returning commuters and snow conditions Figure 55 presents the staged trip generation distributions for both residents with and without returning commuters; the 90th percentile twomile evacuation time is 75 minutes for good weather and 105 minutes for snow scenarios. At the 90th percentile evacuation time, 20% of the population (who normally would have completed their mobilization activities for an un staged evacuation) advised to shelter has nevertheless departed the area. These people do not comply with the shelter advisory. Also included on the plot are the trip generation distributions for these groups as applied to the regions advised to evacuate immediately.

Since the 90th percentile evacuation time occurs before the end of the trip generation time, after the sheltered region is advised to evacuate, the shelter trip generation distribution rises to meet the balance of the nonstaged trip generation distribution. Following time TScen*, the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 517 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

balance of staged evacuation trips that are ready to depart are released within 15 minutes. After TScen*+15, the remainder of evacuation trips are generated in accordance with the unstaged trip generation distribution.

Table 510 provides the trip generation histograms for staged evacuation.

5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational Areas The 2011 Harrison County, Iowa RERP (Part E Section V) indicates that the State of Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Division (HSEMD) will notify resident staff at the DeSoto Wildlife National Refuge at the Alert Classification and at each escalation in classification. Upon initial notification of Alert, or more serious classification, the DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge and the Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge will be closed to the public.

The 2011 Harrison County, Iowa RERP (Part J Section IV) indicates that the DeSoto National Wildlife Refuse is managed by the United States Department of the Interior, which has developed response plans for the refuge. Visitors will be asked to exit the refuge and the EPZ prior to the need for protective actions. The DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge will receive notification from the Iowa HSEMD.

The 2008 Pottawattamie County, Iowa RERP (Part A Section II) indicates that the Conservation Director will provide emergency notification to hunters, fishermen and transients visiting recreation areas.

The 2011 Washington County, Nebraska LEOP (Annex J) indicates that visitors to Fort Atkinson Park or Boyer Chute should respond to a tornado warning in accordance with the current safety plan for these locations.

As indicated in Table 52, this study assumes 100% notification in 45 minutes. Table 59 indicates that all transients will have mobilized within 90 minutes. It is assumed that this 90 minute timeframe is sufficient time for boaters, campers, fishermen and other transients to return to their vehicles and begin their evacuation trip.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 518 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 59. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Unstaged Evacuation Percent of Total Trips Generated Within Indicated Time Period Residents Residents With Residents Residents with Without Commuters Without Time Duration Employees Transients Commuters Commuters Snow Commuters Snow Period (Min) (Distribution A) (Distribution A) (Distribution C) (Distribution D) (Distribution E) (Distribution F) 1 15 8% 8% 0% 1% 0% 1%

2 15 37% 37% 0% 11% 0% 5%

3 15 35% 35% 4% 26% 2% 14%

4 15 13% 13% 11% 25% 6% 19%

5 15 4% 4% 18% 14% 11% 16%

6 15 3% 3% 19% 9% 14% 12%

7 15 0% 0% 16% 3% 15% 8%

8 15 0% 0% 10% 1% 12% 6%

9 30 0% 0% 11% 7% 17% 8%

10 30 0% 0% 6% 2% 10% 5%

11 60 0% 0% 4% 1% 9% 5%

12 15 0% 0% 1% 0% 2% 0%

13 30 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1%

14 120 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%

15 600 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

NOTE:

Shadow vehicles are loaded onto the analysis network (Figure 12) using Distributions C and E for good weather and snow, respectively.

Special event vehicles are loaded using Distribution A.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 519 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Mobilization Activities Employees/Transients Residents with Commuters Residents with no Commuters Res with Comm and Snow Res no Comm with Snow 100 80 60

% of Population Evacuating 40 20 0

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 Elapsed Time from Evacuating Advisory (min)

Figure 54. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 520 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 510. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation Percent of Total Trips Generated Within Indicated Time Period*

Residents Residents Residents with Without Residents With Without Time Duration Commuters Commuters Commuters Snow Commuters Snow Period (Min) (Distribution C) (Distribution D) (Distribution E) (Distribution F) 1 15 0% 0% 0% 0%

2 15 0% 2% 0% 1%

3 15 1% 6% 0% 3%

4 15 2% 5% 2% 4%

5 15 4% 2% 2% 3%

6 15 45% 71% 3% 2%

7 15 16% 3% 3% 2%

8 15 10% 1% 50% 66%

9 30 11% 7% 17% 8%

10 30 6% 2% 10% 5%

11 60 4% 1% 9% 5%

12 15 1% 0% 2% 0%

13 30 0% 0% 1% 1%

14 120 0% 0% 1% 0%

15 600 0% 0% 0% 0%

Trip Generation for Employees and Transients (see Table 59) is the same for Unstaged and Staged Evacuation.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 521 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Staged and Unstaged Evacuation Trip Generation Employees / Transients Residents with Commuters Residents with no Commuters Res with Comm and Snow Res no Comm with Snow Staged Residents with Commuters Staged Residents with no Commuters Staged Residents with Commuters (Snow)

Staged Residents with no Commuters (Snow) 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30

% of Population Evacuating 25 20 15 10 5

0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375 390 405 420 Elapsed Time from Evacuating Advisory (min)

Figure 55. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5 Mile Region Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 522 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

6 DEMAND ESTIMATION FOR EVACUATION SCENARIOS An evacuation case defines a combination of Evacuation Region and Evacuation Scenario.

The definitions of Region and Scenario are as follows:

Region A grouping of contiguous evacuating Sub areas that forms either a keyhole sectorbased area, or a circular area within the EPZ, that must be evacuated in response to a radiological emergency.

Scenario A combination of circumstances, including time of day, day of week, season, and weather conditions. Scenarios define the number of people in each of the affected population groups and their respective mobilization time distributions.

A total of 37 Regions were defined which encompass all the groupings of Sub Areas considered.

These Regions are defined in Table 61. The Sub Areas configurations are identified in Figure

61. Each keyhole sectorbased area consists of a central circle centered at the power plant, and three adjoining sectors, each with a central angle of 22.5 degrees, as per NUREG/CR7002 guidance. The central sector coincides with the wind direction. These sectors extend to 5 miles from the plant (Regions R04 through R12) or to the EPZ boundary (Regions R13 through R127).

Regions R01, R02 and R03 represent evacuations of circular areas with radii of 2, 5 and 10 miles, respectively. Regions R28 through R37 are identical to Regions R04 through R12 and R02, respectively; however, those Sub Areas between 2 miles and 5 miles are staged until 90% of the 2mile region (Region R01) has evacuated.

A total of 14 Scenarios were evaluated for all Regions. Thus, there are a total of 37x14=518 evacuation cases. Table 62 is a description of all Scenarios.

Each combination of region and scenario implies a specific population to be evacuated. Table 63 presents the percentage of each population group estimated to evacuate for each scenario.

Table 64 presents the vehicle counts for each scenario for an evacuation of Region R03 - the entire EPZ.

The vehicle estimates presented in Section 3 are peak values. These peak values are adjusted depending on the scenario and region being considered, using scenario and region specific percentages, such that the average population is considered for each evacuation case. The scenario percentages are presented in Table 63, while the regional percentages are provided in Table H1. The percentages presented in Table 63 were determined as follows:

The number of residents with commuters during the week (when workforce is at its peak) is equal to the product of 65% (the number of households with at least one commuter) and 42%

(the number of households with a commuter that would await the return of the commuter prior to evacuating). See assumption 3 in Section 2.3. It is estimated for weekend and evening scenarios that 3% of households with returning commuters will have a commuter at work during those times.

Employment is assumed to be at its peak during the winter, midweek, midday scenarios.

Employment is reduced slightly (96%) for summer, midweek, midday scenarios. This is based on Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 61 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

the estimation that 50% of the employees commuting into the EPZ will be on vacation for a week during the approximate 12 weeks of summer. It is further estimated that those taking vacation will be uniformly dispersed throughout the summer with approximately 4% of employees vacationing each week. It is further estimated that only 10% of the employees are working in the evenings and during the weekends.

Transient activity is estimated to be at its peak during summer weekends and less (75%) during the week. As shown in Appendix E, there is a moderate amount of lodging and campgrounds offering overnight accommodations in the EPZ; thus, transient activity is estimated to be moderate during evening hours - 55% for summer and 25% for winter. Transient activity on winter weekdays and weekends are estimated to be 35% and 50%, respectively.

As noted in the shadow footnote to Table 63, the shadow percentages are computed using a base of 20% (see assumption 5 in Section 2.2); to include the employees within the shadow region who may choose to evacuate, the voluntary evacuation is multiplied by a scenario specific proportion of employees to permanent residents in the shadow region. For example, using the values provided in Table 64 for Scenario 1, the shadow percentage is computed as follows:

1,650 20% 1 23%

2,991 7,973 One special event - an outage at FCNS - was considered as Scenario 13. Thus, the special event traffic is 100% evacuated for Scenario 13, and 0% for all other scenarios.

It is estimated that summer school enrollment is approximately 10% of enrollment during the regular school year for summer, midweek, midday scenarios. School is not in session during weekends and evenings, thus no buses for school children are needed under those circumstances. As discussed in Section 7, schools are in session during the winter season, midweek, midday and 100% of buses will be needed under those circumstances. Transit buses for the transitdependent population are set to 100% for all scenarios as it is assumed that the transitdependent population is present in the EPZ for all scenarios.

External traffic is estimated to be reduced by 60% during evening scenarios and is 100% for all other scenarios.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 62 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Sub Area Region Description 1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 R01 2Mile Radius x x R02 5Mile Radius x x x x x x x R03 Full EPZ x x x x x x x x x x Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles Sub Area Region Wind Direction Towards 1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 R04 NW, NNW, N, NNE x x x x R05 NE x x x R06 ENE, E x x x x R07 ESE, SE x x x x R08 SSE x x x x x R09 S x x x x R10 SSW x x x x x R11 SW, WSW, W x x x x R12 WNW x x x Evacuate 5Mile Radius and Downwind to EPZ Boundary Sub Area Region Wind Direction Towards 1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 R13 N, NW, NNW x x x x x x x x R14 NNE, NE, ENE x x x x x x x x x R15 E, ESE x x x x x x x x R16 SE, SSE, S, SSW, SW x x x x x x x x N/A WSW, W, WNW Refer to R02 Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to EPZ Boundary Sub Area Region Wind Direction Towards 1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 R17 NW, NNW, N, NNE x x x x x R18 NNE x x x x x x R19 NE x x x x x R20 ENE x x x x x x R21 E x x x x x R22 ESE x x x x x R23 SE x x x x x R24 SSE x x x x x x R25 S x x x x x R26 SSW x x x x x x R27 SW x x x x x N/A WSW, W Refer to R11 N/A WNW Refer to R12 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Sub Area Region Wind Direction Towards 1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 R28 NW, NNW, N, NNE x x x x R29 NE x x x R30 ENE, E x x x x R31 ESE, SE x x x x R32 SSE x x x x x R33 S x x x x R34 SSW x x x x x R35 SW, WSW, W x x x x R36 WNW x x x R37 5Mile Region x x x x x x x ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate SubArea(s) ShelterinPlace SubArea(s) Evacuate Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 63 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 61. FCNS EPZ Sub Areas Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 64 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Day of Time of Scenario Season1 Week Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summer Weekend Evening Good None 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter Midweek Midday Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Snow None Midweek, 12 Winter Weekend Evening Good None 13 Winter Weekend Midday Good Outage at FCNS Roadway 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Impact/Flooding Scenario 1

Winter means that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer means that school is not in session.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 65 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 63. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios Households Households With Without External Returning Returning Special School Transit Through Scenario Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Events Buses Buses Traffic 1 27% 73% 96% 75% 23% 0% 10% 100% 100%

2 27% 73% 96% 75% 23% 0% 10% 100% 100%

3 3% 97% 10% 100% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%

4 3% 97% 10% 100% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%

5 3% 97% 10% 55% 20% 0% 0% 100% 40%

6 27% 73% 100% 35% 23% 0% 100% 100% 100%

7 27% 73% 100% 35% 23% 0% 100% 100% 100%

8 27% 73% 100% 35% 23% 0% 100% 100% 100%

9 3% 97% 10% 50% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%

10 3% 97% 10% 50% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%

11 3% 97% 10% 50% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%

12 3% 97% 10% 25% 20% 0% 0% 100% 40%

13 3% 97% 10% 50% 20% 100% 0% 100% 100%

14 27% 73% 96% 75% 23% 0% 10% 100% 100%

Resident Households with Commuters .......Households of EPZ residents who await the return of commuters prior to beginning the evacuation trip.

Resident Households with No Commuters ..Households of EPZ residents who do not have commuters or will not await the return of commuters prior to beginning the evacuation trip.

Employees..................................................EPZ employees who live outside the EPZ Transients ..................................................People who are in the EPZ at the time of an accident for recreational or other (nonemployment) purposes.

Shadow ......................................................Residents and employees in the shadow region (outside of the EPZ) who will spontaneously decide to relocate during the evacuation. The basis for the values shown is a 20% relocation of shadow residents along with a proportional percentage of shadow employees.

Special Events ............................................Additional vehicles in the EPZ due to the identified special event.

School and Transit Buses ............................Vehicleequivalents present on the road during evacuation servicing schools and transitdependent people (1 bus is equivalent to 2 passenger vehicles).

External Through Traffic .............................Traffic on interstates/freeways and major arterial roads at the start of the evacuation. This traffic is stopped by access control approximately 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months after the evacuation begins.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 66 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 64. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario Households Households With Without Total Returning Returning Special School Transit External Scenario Scenario Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Events Buses Buses Through Traffic Vehicles 1 2,991 7,973 1,650 748 7,768 15 34 3,213 24,392 2 2,991 7,973 1,650 748 7,768 15 34 3,213 24,392 3 299 10,665 172 997 6,858 34 3,213 22,238 4 299 10,665 172 997 6,858 34 3,213 22,238 5 299 10,665 172 548 6,858 34 1,285 19,861 6 2,991 7,973 1,719 349 7,810 148 34 3,213 24,237 7 2,991 7,973 1,719 349 7,810 148 34 3,213 24,237 8 2,991 7,973 1,719 349 7,810 148 34 3,213 24,237 9 299 10,665 172 499 6,858 34 3,213 21,740 10 299 10,665 172 499 6,858 34 3,213 21,740 11 299 10,665 172 499 6,858 34 3,213 21,740 12 299 10,665 172 249 6,858 34 1,285 19,562 13 299 10,665 172 499 6,858 490 34 3,213 22,230 14 2,971 7,921 1,650 572 7,768 15 34 1,096 22,027 Note: Vehicle estimates are for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03)

Note: Scenario 14 has fewer residents because those in the flood zone are assumed to have already evacuated.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 67 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES (ETE)

This section presents the ETE results of the computer analyses using the DYNEV II System described in Appendices B, C and D. These results cover 37 regions within the FCNS EPZ and the 14 Evacuation Scenarios discussed in Section 6.

The ETE for all Evacuation Cases are presented in Table 71 and Table 72. These tables present the estimated times to clear the indicated population percentages from the Evacuation Regions for all Evacuation Scenarios. The ETE of the 2mile region in both staged and unstaged regions are presented in Table 73 and Table 74. Table 75 defines the Evacuation Regions considered.

The tabulated values of ETE are obtained from the DYNEV II System outputs which are generated at 5minute intervals.

7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation Voluntary evacuees are people within the EPZ in Sub Areas for which an Advisory to Evacuate has not been issued, yet who elect to evacuate. shadow evacuation is the voluntary outward movement of some people from the Shadow Region (outside the EPZ) for whom no protective action recommendation has been issued. Both voluntary and shadow evacuations are assumed to take place over the same time frame as the evacuation from within the impacted Evacuation Region.

The ETE for the FCNS EPZ addresses the issue of voluntary evacuees in the manner shown in Figure 71. Within the EPZ, 20 percent of people located in Sub Area outside of the evacuation region who are not advised to evacuate, are assumed to elect to evacuate. Similarly, it is assumed that 20 percent of those people in the Shadow Region will choose to leave the area.

Figure 72 presents the area identified as the Shadow Region. This region extends radially from the plant to cover a region between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15 miles. The population and number of evacuating vehicles in the Shadow Region were estimated using the same methodology that was used for permanent residents within the EPZ (see Section 3.1). As discussed in Section 3.2, it is estimated that a total of 62,837 people reside in the Shadow Region; 20 percent of them would evacuate. See Table 64 for the number of evacuating vehicles from the Shadow Region.

Traffic generated within this Shadow Region, traveling away from the FCNS location, has the potential for impeding evacuating vehicles from within the Evacuation Region. All ETE calculations include this shadow traffic movement.

7.2 Staged Evacuation As defined in NUREG/CR7002, staged evacuation consists of the following:

1. Sub Areas comprising the 2 mile region are advised to evacuate immediately.

2. Sub Areas comprising regions extending from 2 to 5 miles downwind are advised to shelter inplace while the two mile region is cleared.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 71 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

3. As vehicles evacuate the 2 mile region, people from 2 to 5 miles downwind continue preparation for evacuation while they shelter.

4. The population sheltering in the 2 to 5 mile region is advised to evacuate when approximately 90% of the 2 mile region evacuating traffic crosses the 2 mile region boundary.

5. Noncompliance with the shelter recommendation is the same as the shadow evacuation percentage of 20%.

See Section 5.4.2 for additional information on staged evacuation.

7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation Figure 73 through Figure 76 illustrate the patterns of traffic congestion that arise for the case when the entire EPZ (Region R03) is advised to evacuate during the winter, midweek, midday period under good weather conditions (Scenario 6).

Traffic congestion, as the term is used here, is defined as Level of Service (LOS) F. LOS F is defined as follows (HCM 2010, page 55):

The HCM uses LOS F to define operations that have either broken down (i.e., demand exceeds capacity) or have exceeded a specified service measure value, or combination of service measure values, that most users would consider unsatisfactory. However, particularly for planning applications where different alternatives may be compared, analysts may be interested in knowing just how bad the LOS F condition is. Several measures are available to describe individually, or in combination, the severity of a LOS F condition:

Demandtocapacity ratios describe the extent to which capacity is exceeded during the analysis period (e.g., by 1%, 15%, etc.);

Duration of LOS F describes how long the condition persists (e.g., 15 min, 1 h, 3 h); and

Spatial extent measures describe the areas affected by LOS F conditions. These include measures such as the back of queue, and the identification of the specific intersection approaches or system elements experiencing LOS F conditions.

All highway "links" which experience LOS F are delineated in these figures by a thick red line; all others are lightly indicated. Congestion develops around concentrations of population and traffic bottlenecks. Figure 73 displays the buildup of traffic on routes exiting the population center of Blair just 30 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE).

At one hour after the ATE, Figure 74 displays fullydeveloped congestion on sections of US 75 and US 30. The other major evacuation route exiting Blair, SR 91, is at LOS D or better.

Congestion has also developed in the smaller population centers of Kennard and Fort Calhoun which are also located in the Washington County portion of the EPZ.

Over the next 45 minutes, all congestion within the EPZ dissipates. As shown in Figure 75, at Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 72 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

1:45 after the ATE, the lone remnants of congestion are in the Shadow Region to the south on the outskirts of Omaha. US 30 westbound, in the Arlington area, is at LOS D or better and northbound US 75, in the vicinity of the Village of Herman, is at LOS C or better.

Finally, Figure 76 displays an EPZ and Shadow Region that are clear of all congestion, at 2:00 after the ATE. This occurs 2:25 before mobilization is completed. Evacuation is a continuous process, as implied by Figure 77 through Figure 720. These figures indicate the rate at which traffic flows out of the indicated areas for the case of an evacuation of the full EPZ (Region R03) under the indicated conditions. One figure is presented for each scenario considered.

As indicated in Figure 77, there is typically a long "tail" to these distributions. Vehicles begin to evacuate an area slowly at first, as people respond to the ATE at different rates. Then traffic demand builds rapidly (slopes of curves increase). The shapes of these curves reflect the shapes of the trip generation curves in Figure 54. The tail is largely due to the fact that a relatively small percentage of the population takes a long time to mobilize. When the system becomes congested, traffic exits the EPZ at rates somewhat below capacity until some evacuation routes have cleared. Since all congestion within the EPZ is cleared when approximately 90% of evacuees have mobilized, the last 10% of evacuees can exit at freeflow speed along any route. The decline in aggregate flow rate, towards the end of the process, is characterized by these curves flattening and gradually becoming horizontal. Ideally, it would be desirable to fully saturate all evacuation routes equally so that all will service traffic near capacity levels and all will clear at the same time. For this ideal situation, all curves would retain the same slope until the end - thus minimizing evacuation time. In reality, this ideal is generally unattainable reflecting the spatial variation in population density, mobilization rates and in highway capacity over the EPZ.

7.4 Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Results Table 71 and Table 72 present the ETE values for all 37 Evacuation Regions and all 14 Evacuation Scenarios. Table 73 and Table 74 present the ETE values for the 2Mile region for both staged and unstaged keyhole regions downwind to 5 miles. The tables are organized as follows:

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 73 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table Contents ETE represents the elapsed time required for 90 percent of the 71 population within a Region, to evacuate from that Region. All Scenarios are considered, as well as Staged Evacuation scenarios.

ETE represents the elapsed time required for 100 percent of the 72 population within a Region, to evacuate from that Region. All Scenarios are considered, as well as Staged Evacuation scenarios.

ETE represents the elapsed time required for 90 percent of the 73 population within the 2mile Region, to evacuate from that Region with both Concurrent and Staged Evacuations.

ETE represents the elapsed time required for 100 percent of the 74 population within the 2mile Region, to evacuate from that Region with both Concurrent and Staged Evacuations.

The animation snapshots described above reflect the ETE statistics for the concurrent (un staged) evacuation scenarios and regions, which are displayed in Figure 73 through Figure 76.

Most of the congestion is located in and around the City of Blair, located in Sub Area 2 which is inside the 5mile area; this is reflected in the ETE statistics:

The 90th percentile ETE for Regions R01 (2mile area) range between 1:20 (hr:min) and 1:35 (about 2045 minutes higher for snow).

The 90th percentile ETE for Region R02 (5 -mile area) range between 1:45 (hr:min) and 2:00 (about 40 minutes higher for snow).

Generally, more populous regions which contain Sub Area 2 resemble the pattern exhibited by R03. Rural regions which no not include Sub Area 2 more closely resemble R01.

The 100th percentile ETE for all regions are governed by the mobilization times. This fact implies that the congestion within the EPZ dissipates prior to the end of mobilization.

Comparison of Scenarios 9 and 13 in Table 71 indicates that the Special Event - an outage at the plant - does not have a significant impact on the ETE for the 90th percentile. There is sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional 490 employee vehicles at the FCNS. For some regions, the resulting 90th percentile ETE is up to 15 minutes less during an outage because the additional workers mobilize at the same rate as employees, therefore a higher percent start their trip earlier (see Table 59).

Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 71 indicates that the roadway closure - all roadways south of Desoto Ave and east of the Missouri River up to and including I29 - has little impact on 90th or 100th percentile ETE because there exists sufficient reserve capacity on other routes exiting the Iowa portion of the EPZ.

7.5 Staged Evacuation Results Table 73 and Table 74 present a comparison of the ETE compiled for the concurrent (un Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 74 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

staged) and staged evacuation studies. Note that Regions R04 through R12 are the same geographic areas as Regions R28 through R36 respectively and Region R02 is equivalent to Region R37.

To determine whether the staged evacuation strategy is worthy of consideration, one must show that the ETE for the 2 Mile region can be reduced without significantly affecting the region between 2 miles and 5 miles. In all cases, as shown in these tables, the ETE for the 2 mile region is unchanged or increased when a staged evacuation is implemented. The reason it provides no benefit is that the congestion within the 5mile area does not extend upstream to the extent that it penetrates to within 2 miles of the FCNS. Consequently, the impedance, due to this congestion within the 5mile area, to evacuees from within the 2mile area is not sufficient to materially influence the 90th percentile ETE for the 2mile area. Therefore, staging the evacuation to sharply reduce congestion within the 5mile area, provides no benefits to evacuees from within the 2 mile region and unnecessarily delays the evacuation of those beyond 2 miles.

While failing to provide assistance to evacuees from within 2 miles of the FCNS, staging produces a negative impact on the ETE for those evacuating from within the 5mile area. A comparison of ETE between Regions, R04 through R12 with R28 through R36 and R02 with R37; reveals that staging retards the 90th percentile ETE for those in the 2 to 5mile area by up to 20 minutes (see Table 71) and the 100th percentile ETE is unchanged (see Table 72). This extending of ETE is due to the delay in beginning the evacuation trip, experienced by those who shelter, plus the effect of the tripgeneration spike (significant volume of traffic beginning the evacuation trip at the same time) that follows their eventual ATE, in creating congestion within the EPZ area beyond 2 miles.

In summary, the staged evacuation protective action strategy provides no benefits and adversely impacts many evacuees located beyond 2 miles from the FCNS.

7.6 Guidance on Using ETE Tables The user first determines the percentile of population for which the ETE is sought (The NRC guidance calls for the 90th percentile). The applicable value of ETE within the chosen Table may then be identified using the following procedure:

1. Identify the applicable Scenario:

Season Summer Winter (also Autumn and Spring)

Day of Week Midweek Weekend

Time of Day Midday Evening

Weather Condition Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 75 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Good Weather Rain Snow

Special Event Plant Outage at FCNS Road Closure (multiple closures due to Missouri River flooding)

Evacuation Staging No, Staged Evacuation is not considered Yes, Staged Evacuation is considered While these Scenarios are designed, in aggregate, to represent conditions throughout the year, some further clarification is warranted:

The conditions of a summer evening (either midweek or weekend) and rain are not explicitly identified in the Tables. For these conditions, Scenarios (2) and (4) apply.

The conditions of a winter evening (either midweek or weekend) and rain are not explicitly identified in the Tables. For these conditions, Scenarios (7) and (10) for rain apply.

The conditions of a winter evening (either midweek or weekend) and snow are not explicitly identified in the Tables. For these conditions, Scenarios (8) and (11) for snow apply.

The seasons are defined as follows:

Summer assumes that public schools are not in session.

Winter (includes Spring and Autumn) considers that public schools are in session.

Time of Day: Midday implies the time over which most commuters are at work or are travelling to/from work.

2. With the desired percentile ETE and Scenario identified, now identify the Evacuation Region:

Determine the projected azimuth direction of the plume (coincident with the wind direction). This direction is expressed in terms of compass orientation: towards N, NNE, NE,

Determine the distance that the Evacuation Region will extend from the nuclear power plant. The applicable distances and their associated candidate Regions are given below:

2 Miles (Region R01)

To 5 Miles (Region R02, R04 through R12)

To EPZ Boundary (Regions R03, R13 through R27)

Enter Table 75 and identify the applicable group of candidate Regions based on the distance that the selected Region extends from the FCNS. Select the Evacuation Region identifier in that row, based on the azimuth direction of the plume, from the first column of the Table.

3. Determine the ETE Table based on the percentile selected. Then, for the Scenario identified in Step 1 and the Region identified in Step 2, proceed as follows:

The columns of Table 71 are labeled with the Scenario numbers. Identify the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 76 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

proper column in the selected Table using the Scenario number defined in Step 1.

Identify the row in this table that provides ETE values for the Region identified in Step 2.

The unique data cell defined by the column and row so determined contains the desired value of ETE expressed in Hours:Minutes.

Example It is desired to identify the ETE for the following conditions:

Sunday, August 10th at 4:00 AM.

It is raining.

Wind direction is toward the northeast (NE).

Wind speed is such that the distance to be evacuated is judged to be a 5mile radius and downwind to 10 miles (to EPZ boundary).

The desired ETE is that value needed to evacuate 90 percent of the population from within the impacted Region.

A staged evacuation is not desired.

Table 71 is applicable because the 90th percentile ETE is desired. Proceed as follows:

1. Identify the Scenario as summer, weekend, evening and raining. Entering Table 71, it is seen that there is no match for these descriptors. However, the clarification given above assigns this combination of circumstances to Scenario 4.

2. Enter Table 75 and locate the Region described as Evacuate 5Mile Radius and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary for wind direction toward the NE (from the SW) and read Region R14 in the first column of that row.

3. Enter Table 71 to locate the data cell containing the value of ETE for Scenario 4 and Region R14. This data cell is in column (4) and in the row for Region R14; it contains the ETE value of 1:45.

7.7 ETE Reported for other Areas Emergency Management officials operating in the FCNS EPZ employ ETE for other geographic areas which do not follow the traditional regional definitions consistent with wind direction and wind speed. This is customarily done for planning purposes. ETE for these areas has been provided in addition to the traditional regional analysis. Table 76 and Table 77 below provide the 90th and 100th percentile ETE for good weather, rain and snow conditions for the general winter, midweek, midday case. ETE are reported for each individual Sub Area in the EPZ as well as for evacuations involving all of the Sub Areas in each respective state. These ETE reflect the time it takes the stated percentage of the population to evacuate the identified area if only that area is evacuating. A 20% voluntary evacuation for all other areas outward to 15 miles was assumed.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 77 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 71. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Snow Rain Snow Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 1:20 1:20 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:20 1:40 1:30 1:30 2:15 1:35 1:20 1:20 R02 2:00 2:00 1:45 1:50 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:40 1:50 1:50 2:35 2:00 1:45 2:00 R03 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:50 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:40 1:50 1:50 2:35 2:00 1:45 2:05 Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 2:05 1:55 2:05 R05 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:45 1:35 1:35 2:20 1:40 1:20 1:25 R06 1:15 1:20 1:15 1:15 1:25 1:15 1:20 1:30 1:15 1:20 1:30 1:30 1:15 1:15 R07 1:35 1:40 1:30 1:30 1:40 1:35 1:40 2:05 1:30 1:30 2:05 1:45 1:30 1:35 R08 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:40 1:50 1:50 1:50 2:25 1:40 1:40 2:20 1:50 1:40 1:50 R09 2:05 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:40 2:00 2:00 2:40 2:05 1:50 2:05 R10 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 2:05 2:00 2:10 R11 2:10 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 2:05 2:00 2:10 R12 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 2:05 1:55 2:05 Evacuate 5Mile Radius and Downwind to EPZ Boundary R13 2:00 2:00 1:45 1:45 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:40 1:50 1:50 2:35 2:00 1:45 2:00 R14 2:00 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:40 1:50 1:50 2:35 2:00 1:45 2:00 R15 2:00 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:40 1:50 1:50 2:35 2:00 1:45 2:00 R16 2:00 2:00 1:45 1:50 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:40 1:50 1:50 2:35 2:00 1:45 2:00 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 78 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Snow Rain Snow Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to EPZ Boundary R17 2:00 2:00 1:45 1:50 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:35 1:50 1:50 2:35 2:00 1:45 2:00 R18 2:00 2:05 1:50 1:50 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:40 1:50 1:50 2:35 2:00 1:50 2:00 R19 1:40 1:40 1:30 1:30 1:45 1:40 1:45 2:15 1:35 1:35 2:15 1:45 1:30 1:40 R20 1:35 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:35 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:30 1:30 2:05 1:40 1:25 1:35 R21 1:35 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:35 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:25 1:30 2:00 1:40 1:25 1:35 R22 1:45 1:45 1:30 1:30 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:20 1:35 1:35 2:15 1:45 1:35 1:45 R23 1:40 1:45 1:30 1:30 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:15 1:35 1:35 2:15 1:45 1:30 1:40 R24 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:40 1:50 1:50 1:55 2:25 1:40 1:40 2:25 1:50 1:40 1:50 R25 2:05 2:05 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:40 2:00 2:00 2:40 2:05 1:50 2:05 R26 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 2:05 2:00 2:10 R27 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 2:05 2:00 2:10 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R28 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:45 2:10 2:15 2:50 2:10 2:10 2:10 R29 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:35 1:25 1:30 1:55 1:35 1:40 2:20 1:40 1:25 1:25 R30 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:40 1:25 1:25 1:50 1:35 1:20 1:20 R31 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:50 1:55 1:50 1:50 2:25 1:50 1:50 2:25 1:55 1:45 1:50 R32 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:35 1:55 2:00 2:35 2:00 1:55 2:00 R33 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 2:05 2:00 2:05 R34 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:50 2:10 2:15 2:50 2:10 2:10 2:10 R35 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:50 2:10 2:15 2:50 2:10 2:10 2:10 R36 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:45 2:10 2:15 2:50 2:10 2:10 2:10 R37 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:45 2:05 2:10 2:45 2:10 2:05 2:05 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 79 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 72. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Snow Rain Snow Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 6:45 4:15 4:15 6:45 4:15 4:15 4:15 R02 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R03 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R05 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R06 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R07 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R08 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R09 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R10 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R11 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R12 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 Evacuate 5Mile Radius and Downwind to EPZ Boundary R13 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 R14 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 R15 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 R16 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 710 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Snow Rain Snow Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to EPZ Boundary R17 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 R18 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 R19 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 R20 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 R21 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 R22 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 R23 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 R24 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 R25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 R26 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 R27 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 6:55 4:25 4:25 4:25 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R28 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R29 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R30 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R31 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R32 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R33 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R34 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R35 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R36 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R37 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 711 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 73. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2Mile Area within the Indicated Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Snow Rain Snow Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region R01 1:20 1:20 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:20 1:40 1:30 1:30 2:15 1:35 1:20 1:20 R02 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:30 1:40 1:25 1:25 1:50 1:40 1:40 2:20 1:45 1:25 1:20 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:50 1:35 1:40 2:20 1:45 1:25 1:20 R05 1:20 1:20 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:45 1:35 1:35 2:20 1:40 1:20 1:20 R06 1:20 1:20 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:45 1:35 1:35 2:20 1:40 1:20 1:20 R07 1:20 1:20 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:20 1:40 1:30 1:30 2:15 1:35 1:20 1:20 R08 1:20 1:20 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:20 1:40 1:35 1:30 2:20 1:40 1:20 1:20 R09 1:20 1:20 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:20 1:40 1:35 1:30 2:20 1:40 1:20 1:20 R10 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:45 1:35 1:35 2:20 1:45 1:20 1:20 R11 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:45 1:35 1:35 2:20 1:45 1:20 1:20 R12 1:20 1:20 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:45 1:35 1:35 2:20 1:40 1:20 1:20 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R28 1:55 2:00 1:50 1:55 1:50 1:55 2:00 2:35 1:50 2:00 2:30 1:55 1:50 1:50 R29 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:55 1:35 1:40 2:20 1:40 1:25 1:25 R30 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:55 1:35 1:40 2:20 1:40 1:25 1:25 R31 1:20 1:20 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:45 1:35 1:35 2:20 1:40 1:20 1:20 R32 1:20 1:20 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:45 1:35 1:35 2:20 1:40 1:20 1:20 R33 1:20 1:20 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:45 1:35 1:35 2:20 1:40 1:20 1:20 R34 1:55 1:55 2:00 1:55 2:00 1:55 1:55 2:35 2:00 2:00 2:35 1:55 1:55 1:45 R35 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:55 2:00 1:55 2:00 2:35 2:00 2:00 2:35 1:55 1:55 1:45 R36 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:55 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:35 1:50 2:00 2:30 1:55 1:50 1:45 R37 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:00 2:35 2:00 2:00 2:35 1:55 1:55 1:45 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 712 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 74. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2Mile Area within the Indicated Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Snow Rain Snow Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region R01 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 6:45 4:15 4:15 6:45 4:15 4:15 4:15 R02 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R05 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R06 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R07 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R08 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R09 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R10 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R11 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R12 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R28 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R29 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R30 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R31 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R32 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R33 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R34 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R35 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R36 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 R37 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 6:50 4:20 4:20 4:20 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 713 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions Sub Area Region Description 1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 R01 2Mile Radius x x R02 5Mile Radius x x x x x x x R03 Full EPZ x x x x x x x x x x Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles Sub Area Region Wind Direction Towards 1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 R04 NW, NNW, N, NNE x x x x R05 NE x x x R06 ENE, E x x x x R07 ESE, SE x x x x R08 SSE x x x x x R09 S x x x x R10 SSW x x x x x R11 SW, WSW, W x x x x R12 WNW x x x Evacuate 5Mile Radius and Downwind to EPZ Boundary Sub Area Region Wind Direction Towards 1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 R13 N, NW, NNW x x x x x x x x R14 NNE, NE, ENE x x x x x x x x x R15 E, ESE x x x x x x x x R16 SE, SSE, S, SSW, SW x x x x x x x x N/A WSW, W, WNW Refer to R02 ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, then SubArea(s)

Evacuate ShelterinPlace SubArea(s) Evacuate Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 714 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to EPZ Boundary Sub Area Region Wind Direction Towards 1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 R17 NW, NNW, N, NNE x x x x x R18 NNE x x x x x x R19 NE x x x x x R20 ENE x x x x x x R21 E x x x x x R22 ESE x x x x x R23 SE x x x x x R24 SSE x x x x x x R25 S x x x x x R26 SSW x x x x x x R27 SW x x x x x N/A WSW, W Refer to R11 N/A WNW Refer to R12 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Sub Area Region Wind Direction Towards 1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 R28 NW, NNW, N, NNE x x x x R29 NE x x x R30 ENE, E x x x x R31 ESE, SE x x x x R32 SSE x x x x x R33 S x x x x R34 SSW x x x x x R35 SW, WSW, W x x x x R36 WNW x x x R37 5Mile Region x x x x x x x SubArea(s) Shelter ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate inPlace SubArea(s) Evacuate Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 715 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 76. Winter, Midday, Midweek 90th Percentile ETE for Individual Sub Areas ETE Sub Area Population Good Rain Snow Weather 1 668 1:20 1:20 1:40 2 9,704 2:15 2:15 2:50 3 2,933 2:10 2:10 2:50 4 3,069 2:15 2:15 2:50 5 273 2:15 2:15 2:50 Nebraska Total 16,647 2:10 2:10 2:50 10 26 1:25 1:25 1:50 11 148 2:05 2:10 2:45 12 428 1:45 1:45 2:20 13 2,986 1:50 1:50 2:25 14 131 1:15 1:15 1:20 Iowa Total 3,719 1:40 1:40 2:15 Table 77. Winter, Midday, Midweek 100th Percentile ETE for Individual Sub Areas ETE Sub Area Population Good Rain Snow Weather 1 668 4:15 4:15 6:45 2 9,704 4:20 4:20 6:45 3 2,933 4:20 4:15 6:45 4 3,069 4:15 4:15 6:45 5 273 4:15 4:15 6:45 Nebraska Total 16,647 4:20 4:20 6:45 10 26 4:15 4:15 6:45 11 148 4:15 4:15 6:45 12 428 4:15 4:15 6:45 13 2,986 4:20 4:15 6:45 14 131 4:20 4:15 6:45 Iowa Total 3,719 4:15 4:20 6:45 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 716 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 717 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 72. FCNS Shadow Region Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 718 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 719 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the Advisory to Evacuate Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 720 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 75. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour, 45 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 721 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 722 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 1) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

20 18 16 Vehicles Evacuating 14 12 10 (Thousands) 8 6

4 2

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 77. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 1 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

20 18 16 Vehicles Evacuating 14 12 10 (Thousands) 8 6

4 2

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 78. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 2 for Region R03 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 723 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 3) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

20 18 16 Vehicles Evacuating 14 12 10 (Thousands) 8 6

4 2

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 79. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 3 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

20 18 16 Vehicles Evacuating 14 12 10 (Thousands) 8 6

4 2

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 710. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 4 for Region R03 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 724 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 5) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

20 18 16 Vehicles Evacuating 14 12 10 (Thousands) 8 6

4 2

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 5 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 6) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

20 18 16 Vehicles Evacuating 14 12 10 (Thousands) 8 6

4 2

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 6 for Region R03 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 725 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

20 18 16 Vehicles Evacuating 14 12 10 (Thousands) 8 6

4 2

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 7 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario 8) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

20 18 16 Vehicles Evacuating 14 12 10 (Thousands) 8 6

4 2

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 714. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 8 for Region R03 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 726 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 9) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

20 18 16 Vehicles Evacuating 14 12 10 (Thousands) 8 6

4 2

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 9 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

20 18 16 Vehicles Evacuating 14 12 10 (Thousands) 8 6

4 2

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 10 for Region R03 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 727 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario 11) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

20 18 16 Vehicles Evacuating 14 12 10 (Thousands) 8 6

4 2

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 11 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 12) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

20 18 16 Vehicles Evacuating 14 12 10 (Thousands) 8 6

4 2

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 12 for Region R03 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 728 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good, Special Event (Scenario 13) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

20 18 16 Vehicles Evacuating 14 12 10 (Thousands) 8 6

4 2

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 13 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

20 18 16 Vehicles Evacuating 14 12 10 (Thousands) 8 6

4 2

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 720. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 14 for Region R03 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 729 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

8 TRANSITDEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES This section details the analyses applied and the results obtained in the form of evacuation time estimates for transit vehicles. The demand for transit service reflects the needs of three population groups: (1) residents with no vehicles available; (2) residents of special facilities such as schools, medical facilities, and correctional facilities; and (3) homebound special needs population.

These transit vehicles mix with the general evacuation traffic that is comprised mostly of passenger cars (pcs). The presence of each transit vehicle in the evacuating traffic stream is represented within the modeling paradigm described in Appendix D as equivalent to two pcs.

This equivalence factor represents the longer size and more sluggish operating characteristics of a transit vehicle, relative to those of a pc.

Transit vehicles must be mobilized in preparation for their respective evacuation missions.

Specifically:

Bus drivers must be alerted

They must travel to the bus depot

They must be briefed there and assigned to a route or facility These activities consume time. Based on discussion with the offsite agencies, it is estimated that bus mobilization time will average approximately 30 minutes extending from the Advisory to Evacuate, to the time when buses first arrive at the facility to be evacuated.

During this mobilization period, other mobilization activities are taking place. One of these is the action taken by parents, neighbors, relatives and friends to pick up children from school prior to the arrival of buses, so that they may join their families. Virtually all studies of evacuations have concluded that this bonding process of uniting families is universally prevalent during emergencies and should be anticipated in the planning process. The current public information disseminated to residents of the FCNS EPZ indicates that schoolchildren will be evacuated to host schools when there is an immediate need to protect the lives and provide for public safety. As discussed in Section 2, this study assumes a fast breaking general emergency. Therefore, children are evacuated to host schools. Picking up children at school could add to traffic congestion at the schools, delaying the departure of the buses evacuating schoolchildren, which may have to return in a subsequent wave to the EPZ to evacuate the transitdependent population. This report provides estimates of buses under the assumption that no children will be picked up by their parents (in accordance with NUREG/CR7002), to present an upper bound estimate of buses required. It is assumed that children at daycare centers are picked up by parents or guardians and that the time to perform this activity is included in the trip generation times discussed in Section 5.

The procedure for computing transitdependent ETE is to:

Estimate demand for transit service

Estimate time to perform all transit functions Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 81 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Estimate route travel times to the EPZ boundary and to the registration centers 8.1 Transit Dependent People Demand Estimate The telephone survey (see Appendix F) results were used to estimate the portion of the population requiring transit service:

Those persons in households that do not have a vehicle available.

Those persons in households that do have vehicle(s) that would not be available at the time the evacuation is advised.

In the latter group, the vehicle(s) may be used by a commuter(s) who does not return (or is not expected to return) home to evacuate the household.

Table 81 presents estimates of transitdependent people. Note:

Estimates of persons requiring transit vehicles include schoolchildren. For those evacuation scenarios where children are at school when an evacuation is ordered, separate transportation is provided for the schoolchildren. The actual need for transit vehicles by residents is thereby less than the given estimates. However, estimates of transit vehicles are not reduced when schools are in session.

It is reasonable and appropriate to consider that many transitdependent persons will evacuate by ridesharing with neighbors, friends or family. For example, nearly 80 percent of those who evacuated from Mississauga, Ontario who did not use their own cars, shared a ride with neighbors or friends. Other documents report that approximately 70 percent of transit dependent persons were evacuated via ride sharing. We will adopt a conservative estimate that 50 percent of transit dependent persons will ride share, in accordance with NUREG/CR7002.

The estimated number of bus trips needed to service transitdependent persons is based on an estimate of average bus occupancy of 30 persons at the conclusion of the bus run. Transit vehicle seating capacities typically equal or exceed 60 children on average (roughly equivalent to 40 adults). If transit vehicle evacuees are two thirds adults and one third children, then the number of adult seats taken by 30 persons is 20 + (2/3 x10) = 27. On this basis, the average load factor anticipated is (27/40) x 100 = 68 percent. Thus, if the actual demand for service exceeds the estimates of Table 81 by 50 percent, the demand for service can still be accommodated by the available bus seating capacity.

2 20 10 40 1.5 1.00 3

Table 81 indicates that transportation must be provided for 346 people. Therefore, a total of 12 bus runs are required to transport this population to registration centers.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 82 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

To illustrate this estimation procedure, we calculate the number of persons, P, requiring public transit or rideshare, and the number of buses, B, required for the FCNS EPZ:

Where, A = Percent of households with commuters C = Percent of households who will not await the return of a commuter 7,803 0.0141 1.43 0.1596 1.48 1 0.65 0.58 0.4505 2.62 2 0.65 0.58 7,803 0.0887 692 0.5 30 12 These calculations are explained as follows:

All members (1.43 avg.) of households (HH) with no vehicles (1.41%) will evacuate by public transit or rideshare. The term 7,803 (number of households) x 0.0141 x 1.43, accounts for these people.

The members of HH with 1 vehicle away (15.96%), who are at home, equal (1.481).

The number of HH where the commuter will not return home is equal to (7,803 x 0.1596 x 0.65 x 0.58), as 65% of EPZ households have a commuter, 58% of which would not return home in the event of an emergency. The number of persons who will evacuate by public transit or rideshare is equal to the product of these two terms.

The members of HH with 2 vehicles that are away (45.05%), who are at home, equal (2.62 - 2). The number of HH where neither commuter will return home is equal to 7,803 x 0.4505 x (0.65 x 0.58)2. The number of persons who will evacuate by public transit or rideshare is equal to the product of these two terms (the last term is squared to represent the probability that neither commuter will return).

Households with 3 or more vehicles are assumed to have no need for transit vehicles.

The total number of persons requiring public transit is the sum of such people in HH with no vehicles, or with 1 or 2 vehicles that are away from home.

The estimate of transitdependent population in Table 81 far exceeds the number of registered transitdependent persons in the EPZ as provided by the counties (discussed below in Section 8.5). This is consistent with the findings of NUREG/CR6953, Volume 2, in that a large majority of the transitdependent population within the EPZs of U.S. nuclear plants does not register with their local emergency response agency.

Although only 12 buses are required based on the EPZ wide demand, 15 buses are needed in order to meet this demand and have a minimum of one bus servicing each Sub Area.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 83 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

8.2 School Population - Transit Demand Table 82 presents the school population and transportation requirements for the direct evacuation of all schools within the EPZ for the 20112012 school year. This information was provided by the local county emergency management agencies. The column in Table 82 entitled Buses Required specifies the number of buses required for each school under the following set of assumptions and estimates:

No students will be picked up by their parents prior to the arrival of the buses.

While many high school students commute to school using private automobiles (as discussed in Section 2.4 of NUREG/CR7002), the estimate of buses required for school evacuation do not consider the use of these private vehicles.

Bus capacity, expressed in students per bus, is set to 70 for primary schools and 50 for middle and high schools.

Those staff members who do not accompany the students will evacuate in their private vehicles.

No allowance is made for student absenteeism, typically 3 percent daily.

It is recommended that the counties in the EPZ introduce procedures whereby the schools are contacted prior to the dispatch of buses from the depot, to ascertain the current estimate of students to be evacuated. In this way, the number of buses dispatched to the schools will reflect the actual number needed. The need for buses would be reduced by any high school students who have evacuated using private automobiles (if permitted by school authorities).

Those buses originally allocated to evacuate schoolchildren that are not needed due to children being picked up by their parents, can be gainfully assigned to service other facilities or those persons who do not have access to private vehicles or to ridesharing.

Table 83 presents a list of the host schools/registration centers for each school in the EPZ.

Students will be transported to these locations where they will be subsequently retrieved by their respective families.

8.3 Medical Facility Demand Table 84 presents the census of medical facilities in the EPZ. 529 people have been identified as living in, or being treated in, these facilities. The capacity and current census for each facility were provided by the county emergency management agencies. This data includes the number of ambulatory, wheelchairbound and bedridden patients at each facility.

The transportation requirements for the medical facility population are also presented in Table

84. The number of ambulance runs is determined by assuming that 2 patients can be accommodated per ambulance trip; the number of wheelchair van runs assumes 12 wheelchairs per trip; the number of van runs assumes 10 ambulatory patients per trip and the number of bus runs estimated assumes 30 ambulatory patients per trip.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 84 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

8.4 Evacuation Time Estimates for Transit Dependent People EPZ bus resources are assigned to evacuating schoolchildren (if school is in session at the time of the ATE) as the first priority in the event of an emergency. In the event that the allocation of buses dispatched from the depots to the various facilities and to the bus routes is somewhat inefficient, or if there is a shortfall of available drivers, then there may be a need for some buses to return to the EPZ from the registration center after completing their first evacuation trip, to complete a second wave of providing transport service to evacuees. For this reason, the ETE for the transitdependent population will be calculated for both a one wave transit evacuation and for two waves. Of course, if the impacted Evacuation Region is other than R03 (the entire EPZ), then there will likely be ample transit resources relative to demand in the impacted Region and this discussion of a second wave would likely not apply.

When school evacuation needs are satisfied, subsequent assignments of buses to service the transitdependent should be sensitive to their mobilization time. Clearly, the buses should be dispatched after people have completed their mobilization activities and are in a position to board the buses when they arrive at the pickup points.

Evacuation Time Estimates for transit trips were developed using both good weather and adverse weather conditions. Figure 81 presents the chronology of events relevant to transit operations. The elapsed time for each activity will now be discussed with reference to Figure 81.

Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)

Mobilization is the elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate until the time the buses arrive at the facility to be evacuated. It is assumed that for a rapidly escalating radiological emergency with no observable indication before the fact, school bus drivers would likely require 30 minutes to be contacted, to travel to the depot, be briefed, and to travel to the transit dependent facilities. Mobilization time is slightly longer in adverse weather - 40 minutes when raining, 50 minutes when snowing.

Activity: Board Passengers (CD)

Based on discussions with offsite agencies, a loading time of 15 minutes (20 minutes for rain and 25 minutes for snow) for school buses is used.

For multiple stops along a pickup route (transitdependent bus routes) estimation of travel time must allow for the delay associated with stopping and starting at each pickup point. The time, t, required for a bus to decelerate at a rate, a, expressed in ft/sec/sec, from a speed, v, expressed in ft/sec, to a stop, is t = v/a. Assuming the same acceleration rate and final speed following the stop yields a total time, T, to service boarding passengers:

2 ,

Where B = Dwell time to service passengers. The total distance, s in feet, travelled during the deceleration and acceleration activities is: s = v2/a. If the bus had not stopped to service passengers, but had continued to travel at speed, v, then its travel time over the distance, s, Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 85 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

would be: s/v = v/a. Then the total delay (i.e. pickup time, P) to service passengers is:

Assigning reasonable estimates:

B = 50 seconds: a generous value for a single passenger, carrying personal items, to board per stop

v = 25 mph = 37 ft/sec

a = 4 ft/sec/sec, a moderate average rate Then, P 1 minute per stop. Allowing 30 minutes pickup time per bus run implies 30 stops per run, for good weather. It is assumed that bus acceleration and speed will be less in rain; total loading time is 40 minutes per bus in rain, 50 minutes in snow.

Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary (DE)

School Evacuation Transportation resources available were provided by the EPZ county emergency management agencies and are summarized in Table 85. Also included in the table are the number of buses needed to evacuate schools, medical facilities, transitdependent population, homebound special needs (discussed below in Section 8.5) and correctional facilities (discussed below in Section 8.6). These numbers indicate there are not sufficient resources available to evacuate everyone in a single wave, with the exception of the bedridden population within the EPZ, which requires one waves of ambulance transportation. In order to evacuate all ambulatory and wheelchair bound persons, mutual aid agreements would need to be invoked.

The buses servicing the schools are ready to begin their evacuation trips at 45 minutes after the advisory to evacuate - 30 minutes mobilization time plus 15 minutes loading time - in good weather. The UNITES software discussed in Section 1.3 was used to define bus routes along the most likely path from a school being evacuated to the EPZ boundary, traveling toward the appropriate host school/registration center. Each route is defined as a sequence of nodes starting at the school and ending at the EPZ boundary. DYNEV uses this information to compute the average speed along each bus route based on the simulation. The average speed along each route is then used to determine the travel time component of the ETE for each school.

The specified bus routes are documented in Table 86 (refer to the maps of the linknode analysis network in Appendix K for node locations). Data provided by DYNEV during the appropriate timeframe depending on the mobilization and loading times (i.e., 45 to 50 minutes after the advisory to evacuate for good weather) were used to compute the average speed for each route, as follows:

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 86 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

60 .

1 .

. 60 .

. . 1 .

The average speed computed (using this methodology) for the buses servicing each of the schools in the EPZ is shown in Table 87 through Table 89 for school evacuation, and in Table 811 through Table 813 for the transit vehicles evacuating transitdependent persons, which are discussed later. The travel time to the EPZ boundary was computed for each bus using the computed average speed and the distance to the EPZ boundary along the most likely route out of the EPZ. The travel time from the EPZ boundary to the host school/registration center was computed assuming an average speed of 55 mph, 50 mph, and 45 mph for good weather, rain and snow, respectively. Speeds were reduced in Table 87 through Table 89 and in Table 811 through Table 813 to 55 mph (50 mph for rain - 10% decrease, rounded to the nearest 5mph -

and 45 mph for snow - 20% decrease, rounded to the nearest 5 mph) for those calculated bus speeds which exceed 55 mph, as the school bus speed limit for state routes in both Nebraska and Iowa is 55 mph.

Table 87 (good weather), Table 88 (rain) and Table 89 (snow) present the following evacuation time estimates (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes) for schools in the EPZ: (1) The elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate until the bus exits the EPZ; and (2) The elapsed time until the bus reaches the host school/registration center. The evacuation time out of the EPZ can be computed as the sum of times associated with Activities ABC, CD, and DE (For example: 30 min. + 15 + 1 = 0:50 for Missouri Valley Elementary School, with good weather, rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes). The evacuation time to the registration center/host school is determined by adding the time associated with Activity EF (discussed below), to this EPZ evacuation time.

Table 85 indicates that there is an insufficient number of buses to transport all students to their respective host schools in a single wave and that additional waves may be required.

Further, Region 5/6 planning officials have determined that a total of three waves would be required to evacuate the school districts of Blair and Ft. Calhoun.

The secondwave ETE for Blair Arbor Park Middle School is computed as follows for good weather:

Bus arrives at host school at 1:18 in good weather (1:05 to exit EPZ + 13 minute travel time to the host school).

Bus discharges passengers (5 minutes) and driver takes a 10minute rest: 15 minutes.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 87 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Bus returns to EPZ and begin a second route: 13 minutes (travel time to registration center) + 12 minutes (10.3 miles @ 51.5 mph) + 11 minutes (10.3 miles @ 55 mph) =

36 minutes

Bus picks up students: 15 minutes.

Bus exits EPZ at time 1:18 + 0:15 + 0:36 + 0:15 = 2:25 after the Advisory to Evacuate.

A third wave would follow the same calculation. The ETE for the completion of the second and third waves for all schools are provided in Table 87 through Table 89. The average ETE for two and three wave evacuations of schools are greater than the ETE for the general population at the 90th percentile.

Evacuation of TransitDependent Population The buses dispatched from the depots to service the transitdependent evacuees will be scheduled so that they arrive at their respective routes after their passengers have completed their mobilization. As shown in Figure 54 (Residents with no Commuters), 90 percent of the evacuees will complete their mobilization when the buses will begin their routes, approximately 120 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate. Sub Area 2 and 4 have high transitdependent populations and require more buses than any other Sub Area (Table 810). As such, additional buses have been assigned to the routes servicing each of these Sub Areas. The start of service on these routes is separated by 10 minute headways, as shown in Table 811 through Table 813. The use of bus headways ensures that those people who take longer to mobilize will be picked up. Mobilization time is 10 minutes longer in rain to account for slower travel speeds and reduced roadway capacity.

Those buses servicing the transitdependent evacuees will first travel along their pickup routes, then proceed out of the EPZ. The county emergency plans do not define bus routes or pickup locations. The 10 bus routes shown graphically in Figure 82 and described in Table 810 were designed as part of this study to service the major routes through each Sub Area. It is assumed that residents will walk to and congregate at these predesignated pickup locations, and that they can arrive at the stops within the 90 minute bus mobilization time (good weather).

As previously discussed, a pickup time of 30 minutes (good weather) is estimated for 30 individual stops to pick up passengers, with an average of one minute of delay associated with each stop. A longer pickup time of 40 minutes and 50 minutes are used for rain and snow, respectively.

The travel distance along the respective pickup routes within the EPZ is estimated using the UNITES software. Bus travel times within the EPZ are computed using average speeds computed by DYNEV, using the aforementioned methodology that was used for school evacuation.

Table 811 through Table 813 present the transitdependent population evacuation time estimates for each bus route calculated using the above procedures for good weather, rain and snow, respectively.

For example, the ETE for the bus route servicing Route 1 is computed as 120 + 20 + 30 = 2:50 for good weather (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes). Here, 20 minutes is the time to travel 16.8 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 88 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

miles at 51.4 mph, the average speed output by the model for this route starting at 120 minutes. The ETE for a second wave (discussed below) is presented in the event there is a shortfall of available buses or bus drivers, as previously discussed.

Activity: Travel to Registration Centers (EF)

The distances from the EPZ boundary to the registration centers are measured using GIS software along the most likely route from the EPZ exit point to the registration center. The registration centers are mapped in Figure 101. For a onewave evacuation, this travel time outside the EPZ does not contribute to the ETE. For a twowave evacuation, the ETE for buses must be considered separately, since it could exceed the ETE for the general public. Assumed bus speeds of 55 mph, 50 mph, and 45 mph for good weather, rain, and snow, respectively, will be applied for this activity for buses servicing the transitdependent population.

Activity: Passengers Leave Bus (FG)

A bus can empty within 5 minutes. The driver takes a 10 minute break.

Activity: Bus Returns to Route for Second Wave Evacuation (GC)

The buses assigned to return to the EPZ to perform a second wave evacuation of transit dependent evacuees will be those that have already evacuated transitdependent people who mobilized more quickly. The first wave of transitdependent people depart the bus, and the bus then returns to the EPZ, travels to its route and proceeds to pick up more transit dependent evacuees along the route. The travel time back to the EPZ is equal to the travel time to the registration center.

The secondwave ETE for the bus route servicing Route 1 is computed as follows for good weather:

Bus arrives at registration center at 3:03 in good weather (2:50 to exit EPZ + 13 minute travel time to registration center).

Bus discharges passengers (5 minutes) and driver takes a 10minute rest: 15 minutes.

Bus returns to EPZ and completes second route: 13 minutes (equal to travel time to registration center) + 19 minutes (16.8 miles @ 52.3 mph) + 18 minutes (16.8 miles

@ 55 mph)= 50 minutes

Bus completes pickups along route: 30 minutes.

Bus exits EPZ at time 2:50 + 0:13 + 0:15 + 0:50 + 0:30 = 4:40 (rounded to nearest 5 minutes) after the Advisory to Evacuate.

The ETE for the completion of the second wave for all transitdependent bus routes are provided in Table 811 through Table 813. The average ETE for a twowave evacuation of transitdependent people exceeds the ETE for the general population at the 90th percentile.

The relocation of transitdependent evacuees from the registration centers to congregate care centers, if the counties decide to do so, is not considered in this study.

Evacuation of Medical Facilities Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 89 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

The evacuation of these facilities is similar to school evacuation except:

Buses are assigned on the basis of 30 patients to allow for staff to accompany the patients. Wheelchair vans can accommodate 12 patients, and ambulances can accommodate 2 patients.

Loading times of 1 minute, 5 minutes, and 15 minutes per patient are assumed for ambulatory patients, wheelchair bound patients, and bedridden patients, respectively.

Table 84 indicates that 10 bus runs, 10 wheelchair van runs and no ambulance runs are needed to service all of the medical facilities in the EPZ. According to Table 85, the counties can collectively provide 66 buses, 25 vans, 7 wheelchair vans and 16 ambulances. Buses will be dispatched to the schools first (which need 74 buses), thus, there are insufficient resources to evacuate the ambulatory and wheelchair bound persons from the medical facilities in a single wave. A twowave evacuation is needed for evacuating these patients.

For medical facilities, it is estimated that mobilization time averages 90 minutes. Specially trained medical support staff (working their regular shift) will be on site to assist in the evacuation of patients. Additional staff (if needed) could be mobilized over this same 90 minute timeframe.

Table 814 through Table 816 summarize the ETE for medical facilities within the EPZ for good weather, rain, and snow. Average speeds output by the model for Scenario 6 (Scenario 7 for rain and Scenario 8 for snow) Region 3, capped at 55 mph (50 mph for rain and 45 mph for snow), are used to compute travel time to EPZ boundary. The travel time to the EPZ boundary is computed by dividing the distance to the EPZ boundary by the average travel speed. The ETE is the sum of the mobilization time, total passenger loading time, and travel time out of the EPZ. Concurrent loading on multiple buses, wheelchair vans, and ambulances at capacity is assumed such that the maximum loading times for buses, wheelchair vans and ambulances are 30, 60 and 30 minutes, respectively. All ETE are rounded to the nearest 5 minutes. For example, the calculation of ETE for the Alegent Health Community Memorial Hospital with 2 ambulatory residents during good weather is:

ETE: 90 + 2 x 1 + 1 = 93 min. or 1:35 rounded to the nearest 5 minutes.

Table 85 indicates that there is an insufficient number of buses and wheelchair vans to transport all patients to their respective medical host facilities in a single wave and that additional waves may be required.

The secondwave ETE is calculated as an average for all facilities since the exact assignment of wheelchair buses for a first and second wave influences loading times and subsequent wave starting times. The exact assignment of resources is unpredictable in that it is subject to the judgment of emergency responders based on conditions that exist on the ground. The average second wave ETE for medical facilities is calculated as follows.

Vehicle arrives at medical host facility at 2:37 on average in good weather (2:10 to exit EPZ + 27 minute travel time to the medical host facility).

Vehicle discharges passengers and driver takes a rest: 15 minutes.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 810 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Vehicle returns to EPZ and begin a second route: 27 minutes (travel time to medical host facility) + 6 minutes (5.4 miles @ 55 mph) + 7 minutes (5.4 miles @ 48.6 mph) =

40 minutes.

Vehicle pickups patients: 29 minutes.

Vehicle exits EPZ at time 2:37 + 0:15 + 0:40 + 0:29 = 4:05 (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes) after the Advisory to Evacuate.

A third wave would follow the same calculation. The average ETE for the completion of the second and third waves for medical facilities are provided in Table 814 through Table 816.

The average ETE for two and three wave evacuations of schools are greater than the ETE for the general population at the 90th percentile.

It is assumed that medical facility population is directly evacuated to appropriate host medical facilities. Relocation of this population to permanent facilities and/or passing through the registration center before arriving at the host facility are not considered in this analysis.

8.5 Special Needs Population The county emergency management agencies have a combined registration for transit dependent and homebound special needs persons. Based on data provided by the counties, there are 12 homebound special needs people registered within the Washington County portion of the EPZ. There are no homebound special needs people registered in Harrison or Pottawattamie County. Details on the number of ambulatory, wheelchairbound and bedridden people were given. There are no ambulatory, 9 wheelchair bound and 3 bedridden persons registered in the EPZ.

ETE for Homebound Special Needs Persons Table 817 summarizes the ETE for homebound special needs people. The table is categorized by type of vehicle required and then broken down by weather condition. The table takes into consideration the deployment of multiple vehicles to reduce the number of stops per vehicle.

It is conservatively assumed that ambulatory and wheelchair bound special needs households are spaced 3 miles apart and bedridden households are spaced 5 miles apart. Van and bus speeds approximate 20 mph between households and ambulance speeds approximate 30 mph in good weather (10% slower in rain, 20% slower in snow). Mobilization times of 90 minutes were used (100 minutes for rain, and 110 minutes for snow). The last HH is assumed to be 5 miles from the EPZ boundary, and the networkwide average speed, capped at 55 mph (50 mph for rain and 45 mph for snow), after the last pickup is used to compute travel time. ETE is computed by summing mobilization time, loading time at first household, travel to subsequent households, loading time at subsequent households, and travel time to EPZ boundary. All ETE are rounded to the nearest 5 minutes.

For example, assuming no more than one special needs person per HH implies that 9 wheelchair bound households need to be serviced. While only 1 van is needed from a capacity perspective, if 3 vans are deployed to service these special needs HH, then each would require 3 stops. The following outlines the ETE calculations:

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 811 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

1. Assume 3 wheelchair vans are deployed, each with 3 stops, to service a total of 9 HH.

2. The ETE is calculated as follows:

a. Wheelchair vans arrive at the first pickup location: 90 minutes

b. Load HH members at first pickup: 5 minutes

c. Travel to subsequent pickup locations: 2 @ 9 minutes = 18 minutes

d. Load HH members at subsequent pickup locations: 2 @ 5 minutes = 10 minutes

e. Travel to EPZ boundary: 6 minutes (5 miles @ 47.6 mph).

ETE: 90 + 5 + 18 + 10 + 6 = 2:10 rounded to the nearest 5 minutes The following outlines the ETE calculations if a second wave is needed using wheelchair vans:

Wheelchair vans arrive at arrive at registration center at 2:47 (2:10 from Table 817 + 37 minutes average travel time to registration center from Table 811).

a. Unload occupants at registration center: 15 minutes.

b. Driver takes 10 minute rest: 10 minutes.

c. Travel time back to EPZ: 42 minutes (33.7 miles, average distance to registration center in Table 811 at 55 mph)

d. Travel time to first household 5 minutes (5 miles @ 55 mph)

e. Bus travels to all stops: 3 stops @ 9 minutes = 27 minutes

f. Loading time at all stops: 3 stops @ 5 minutes = 15 minutes

g. Travel time to EPZ boundary: 6 minutes (5 miles @ 47.7 mph)

ETE: 2:47 + 15 + 10 + 37 + 5 + 27 + 15 +5 = 4:45 rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes.

8.6 Correctional Facilities As detailed in Table E9, there is one correctional facility within the EPZ - Washington County Jail. The total inmate population at this facility is 32 persons. A total of 2 buses are needed to evacuate this facility, based on a capacity of 30 inmates per bus. Mobilization time is assumed to be 90 minutes (100 minutes in rain, 110 minutes for snow). It is estimated that it takes 60 minutes to load the inmates onto a bus, and that 2 buses can be loaded in parallel. Thus, total loading time is estimated at approximately 60 minutes. Using GIS software, the shortest route from the facility to the EPZ boundary, traveling towards the Douglas County reception site, is 12.3 miles. The travel time to traverse 12.3 miles is 14 minutes (52.1 mph at 2:30) in good weather, 15 minutes (50.0 mph at 2:40) in rain and 16 minutes (45.0 mph at 2:50) in snow. All ETE are rounded to the nearest 5 minutes.

ETE: 90 + 60 + 14 = 2:45 Rain ETE: 100 + 60 + 15 = 2:55 Snow ETE: 110 + 60 + 16 = 3:10 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 812 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

(Subsequent Wave)

A B C D E F G Time Event A Advisory to Evacuate B Bus Dispatched from Depot C Bus Arrives at Facility/Pickup Route D Bus Departs for Registration Center E Bus Exits Region F Bus Arrives at Registration Center/Host Facility G Bus Available for Second Wave Evacuation Service Activity AB Driver Mobilization BC Travel to Facility or to Pickup Route CD Passengers Board the Bus DE Bus Travels Towards Region Boundary EF Bus Travels Towards Registration Center Outside the EPZ FG Passengers Leave Bus; Driver Takes a Break Figure 81. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 813 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 82. TransitDependent Bus Routes Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 814 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 81. TransitDependent Population Estimates Survey Average HH Survey Percent Size Survey Percent HH Survey Percent HH Total People Population with Indicated No. of Estimated with Indicated No. of Percent HH with Non People Estimated Requiring Requiring 2010 EPZ Vehicles No. of Vehicles with Returning Requiring Ridesharing Public Public Population 0 1 2 Households 0 1 2 Commuters Commuters Transport Percentage Transit Transit 20,366 1.43 1.48 2.62 7,803 1.41% 15.96% 45.05% 65% 58% 692 50% 346 1.7%

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 815 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 82. School Population Demand Estimates Sub Local Buses Area School Name Enrollment Required 13 Missouri Valley Elementary School 414 6 13 Missouri Valley High School 323 7 13 Missouri Valley Middle School 197 4 2 Blair Arbor Park Middle School 385 8 2 Blair High School 684 14 2 Deerfield Elementary School 295 5 2 Gerald Otte Blair Middle School 554 12 2 North Elementary School 198 3 2 South Elementary School 131 2 2 West Elementary School 73 2 3 Fort Calhoun Elementary School 285 5 3 Fort Calhoun Jr.Sr. High School 250 5 TOTAL: 3,789 73 Table 83. Host School / Registration Centers School Host School/Registration Center Missouri Valley Elementary School Missouri Valley High School Logan Magnolia Community School Missouri Valley Middle School Blair Arbor Park Middle School Blair High School Deerfield Elementary School Gerald Otte Blair Middle School North Elementary School Fremont Middle School South Elementary School West Elementary School Fort Calhoun Elementary School Fort Calhoun Jr.Sr. High School Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 816 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 84. Medical Facility Transit Demand Wheel WC Sub Cap Current Ambu chair Bed Van Van Bus Ambulance Area Facility Name Municipality acity Census latory Bound ridden Runs Runs Runs Runs Harrison County, IA Alegent Health Community 13 Missouri Valley 25 4 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 Memorial Hospital 13 Culivan Heights Missouri Valley 52 52 52 0 0 0 0 2 0 13 Kovar Court Missouri Valley 24 24 15 9 0 1 2 0 0 13 Longview Home Missouri Valley 130 130 65 65 0 6 0 3 0 Harrison County, IA Subtotals: 231 210 134 76 0 8 3 5 0 Washington County, NE 2 Carter House Blair 36 15 13 2 0 1 2 0 0 2 Crowell Memorial Home Blair 112 112 57 55 0 5 0 2 0 2 Good Shepherd Lutheran Home Blair 96 76 38 38 0 4 1 1 0 2 Memorial Community Hospital Blair 21 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Autumn Pointe Assisted Living 3 Fort Calhoun 40 32 32 0 0 0 4 0 0 Community Washington County, NE Subtotals: 305 236 140 96 0 11 7 3 0 Totals 536 446 274 172 0 19 10 8 0 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 817 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 85. Summary of Transportation Resources Transportation Resource Vans Buses WC Vans Ambulances Resources Available Arlington FD 0 0 0 2 Arlington Schools 5 9 0 0 Blair FD 0 0 0 2 Blair Schools 5 22 0 0 City of Council Bluffs 0 0 0 5 Fort Calhoun FD 0 0 0 2 Fort Calhoun Schools 3 13 0 0 Herman FD 0 0 0 1 Kennard FD 0 0 0 2 Missouri Valley FD 0 0 0 2 Missouri Valley Transportation Department 5 12 0 0 TekamahHerman Schools 6 10 0 0 Washington County Rural Transportation 1 0 5 0 Longview Home 0 0 2 0 TOTAL: 25 66 7 16 Resources Needed Population Group/Mobility Level Vans Buses WC Vans Ambulances Schools (Table 82): 0 73 0 0 Medical Facilities (Table 84): 10 8 19 0 TransitDependent Population (Table 810): 0 15 0 0 Correctional Facilities (Table 819) 0 2 0 0 Homebound Special Needs (Section 8.5): 0 0 1 2 TOTAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS: 10 98 20 2 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 818 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 86. Bus Route Descriptions Bus Route Number Description Nodes Traversed from Route Start to EPZ Boundary 675, 822, 308, 307, 306, 82, 505, 708, 707, 72, 211, 210, 1 Sub Area 1 209, 208, 218, 219, 220, 212, 781, 223, 225, 226, 227 522, 521, 509, 82, 505, 708, 707, 72, 211, 210, 209, 208, 2 Sub Area 2 218, 219, 220, 212, 781, 223, 225, 226, 227 3 Sub Area 3 214, 222, 213, 212, 781, 223, 225, 226, 227 492, 494, 495, 468, 496, 497, 461, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 4 Sub Area 4 503 5 Sub Area 5 463, 462, 760 84, 85, 605, 673, 704, 86, 87, 99, 88, 89, 90, 618, 621, 91, 6 Sub Area 10 92, 695, 93, 94 599, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 673, 704, 86, 87, 99, 88, 7 Sub Area 11 89, 90, 618, 621, 91, 92, 695, 93, 94 8 Sub Area 12 821, 585, 820, 589, 590, 591, 592, 593 9 Sub Area 13 697, 616, 618, 621, 91, 92, 695, 93, 94 10 Sub Area 14 668, 669, 606, 607, 608, 609, 19, 20, 35, 45, 46, 36, 37 82, 505, 708, 707, 72, 211, 210, 209, 208, 711, 712, 713, 11 Washington County Jail 217, 216, 215, 214, 478, 466, 465, 464, 463, 462 522, 521, 509, 82, 505, 708, 707, 72, 211, 210, 209, 208, 12 Carter House 218, 219, 220, 212, 781, 223, 225, 226, 227 Autumn Pointe Assisted 13 468, 496, 497, 461, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503 Living Community Alegent Health 14 Community Memorial 696, 695, 93, 94, 95 Hospital 15 Culivan Heights 621, 91, 92, 695, 93, 94 16 Kovar Court 91, 92, 695, 93, 94 17 Longview Home 696, 695, 93, 94 507, 211, 210, 209, 208, 218, 219, 220, 212, 781, 223, 225, 18 Crowell Memorial Home 226, 227 Good Shepherd Lutheran 72, 211, 210, 209, 208, 218, 219, 220, 212, 781, 223, 225, 19 Home 226, 227 Memorial Community 72, 211, 210, 209, 208, 218, 219, 220, 212, 781, 223, 225, 20 Hospital 226, 227 Missouri Valley 21 696, 695, 93, 94 Elementary School Missouri Valley High 22 696, 695, 93, 94 School Missouri Valley Middle 23 621, 91, 92, 695, 93, 94 School Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 819 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Bus Route Number Description Nodes Traversed from Route Start to EPZ Boundary Blair Arbor Park Middle 692, 511, 505, 708, 707, 72, 211, 210, 209, 208, 218, 219, 25 School 220, 212, 781, 223, 225, 226, 227 521, 509, 82, 505, 708, 707, 72, 211, 210, 209, 208, 218, 26 Blair High School 219, 220, 212, 781, 223, 225, 226, 227 Deerfield Elementary 513, 512, 823, 74, 73, 72, 211, 210, 209, 208, 218, 219, 220, 27 School 212, 781, 223, 225, 226, 227 Gerald Otte Blair Middle 522, 521, 509, 82, 505, 708, 707, 72, 211, 210, 209, 208, 28 School 218, 219, 220, 212, 781, 223, 225, 226, 227 521, 509, 82, 505, 708, 707, 72, 211, 210, 209, 208, 218, 29 North Elementary School 219, 220, 212, 781, 223, 225, 226, 227 506, 211, 210, 209, 208, 218, 219, 220, 212, 781, 223, 225, 30 South Elementary School 226, 227 72, 211, 210, 209, 208, 218, 219, 220, 212, 781, 223, 225, 31 West Elementary School 226, 227 Fort Calhoun Elementary 32 783, 468, 496, 497, 461, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503 School Fort Calhoun Jr.Sr. High 33 495, 468, 496, 497, 461, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503 School 34 I29 N 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7 35 I29 S 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 35, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 36 US 75 S 492, 494, 495, 468, 496, 497, 461, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502 37 US 75 N 72, 73, 74, 823, 512, 710, 75, 194, 76, 77, 78, 79 72, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 195, 157, 166, 38 SR 91 W 205, 204, 203 84, 682, 689, 83, 509, 82, 505, 708, 707, 72, 211, 210, 209, 39 US 30 W 208, 218, 219, 220, 212, 781, 223, 225, 226 85, 605, 673, 704, 86, 87, 99, 88, 89, 90, 618, 621, 91, 92, 40 US 30 E 695, 93 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 820 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 87. School Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather OneWave TwoWave ThreeWave Route Route Travel Travel Time Driver Route Driver Mobilizati Loading Length Speed Time ETE Distance to to H.S. Unload Rest Travel Loading ETE Distance to Travel Time Unload Rest Route Travel Loading ETE School on (min) Time (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (hr:min) H.S. (miles) (min) (min) (min) Time (min) Time (min) (hr:min) H.S. (miles) to H.S. (min) (min) (min) Time (min) Time (min) (hr:min)

Harrison County, IA Missouri Valley Elementary School 30 15 0.3 27.1 1 0:50 8.4 9 5 10 10 15 1:40 8.4 9 5 10 10 15 2:30 Missouri Valley High School 30 15 0.1 27.1 0 0:45 8.4 9 5 10 10 15 1:35 8.4 9 5 10 9 15 2:25 Missouri Valley Middle School 30 15 0.6 41.4 1 0:50 8.4 9 5 10 11 15 1:45 8.4 9 5 10 11 15 2:40 Washington County, NE Blair Arbor Park Middle School 30 15 10.3 35.7 17 1:05 11.6 13 5 10 36 15 2:25 11.6 13 5 10 35 15 3:45 Blair High School 30 15 10.5 34.5 18 1:05 11.7 13 5 10 36 15 2:25 11.7 13 5 10 36 15 3:45 Deerfield Elementary School 30 15 10.5 36.9 17 1:05 11.7 13 5 10 36 15 2:25 11.7 13 5 10 36 15 3:45 Gerald Otte Blair Middle School 30 15 11.0 34.5 19 1:05 11.7 13 5 10 38 15 2:30 11.7 13 5 10 37 15 3:50 North Elementary School 30 15 10.5 34.5 18 1:05 11.7 13 5 10 36 15 2:25 11.7 13 5 10 36 15 3:45 South Elementary School 30 15 9.3 37.4 15 1:00 11.7 13 5 10 33 15 2:20 11.7 13 5 10 33 15 3:40 West Elementary School 30 15 9.7 38.5 15 1:00 11.7 13 5 10 34 15 2:20 11.7 13 5 10 34 15 3:40 Fort Calhoun Elementary School 30 15 5.2 25.2 12 1:00 33.0 36 5 10 48 15 2:55 33.0 36 5 10 47 15 4:50 Fort Calhoun Jr.Sr. High School 30 15 5.5 26.2 13 1:00 33.0 36 5 10 48 15 2:55 33.0 36 5 10 48 15 4:50 Maximum ETE: 1:05 Maximum ETE: 2:55 Maximum ETE: 4:50 Average ETE: 1:00 Average ETE: 2:20 Average ETE: 3:40 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 821 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 88. School Evacuation Time Estimates Rain OneWave TwoWave ThreeWave Route Route Travel Travel Time Driver Route Driver Mobilizati Loading Length Speed Time ETE Distance to to H.S. Unload Rest Travel Loading ETE Distance to Travel Time Unload Rest Route Travel Loading ETE School on (min) Time (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (hr:min) H.S. (miles) (min) (min) (min) Time (min) Time (min) (hr:min) H.S. (miles) to H.S. (min) (min) (min) Time (min) Time (min) (hr:min)

Harrison County, IA Missouri Valley Elementary School 40 20 0.3 27.0 1 1:05 8.4 10 5 10 11 20 2:05 8.4 10 5 10 11 15 3:00 Missouri Valley High School 40 20 0.1 27.0 0 1:00 8.4 10 5 10 11 20 2:00 8.4 10 5 10 10 15 2:55 Missouri Valley Middle School 40 20 0.6 37.6 1 1:05 8.4 10 5 10 12 20 2:05 8.4 10 5 10 12 15 3:00 Washington County, NE Blair Arbor Park Middle School 40 20 10.3 31.5 20 1:20 11.6 14 5 10 39 20 2:50 11.6 14 5 10 38 20 4:20 Blair High School 40 20 10.5 32.1 20 1:20 11.7 14 5 10 39 20 2:50 11.7 14 5 10 38 20 4:20 Deerfield Elementary School 40 20 10.5 32.8 19 1:20 11.7 14 5 10 39 20 2:50 11.7 14 5 10 38 20 4:20 Gerald Otte Blair Middle School 40 20 11.0 32.6 20 1:20 11.7 14 5 10 41 20 2:55 11.7 14 5 10 39 20 4:25 North Elementary School 40 20 10.5 32.1 20 1:20 11.7 14 5 10 39 20 2:50 11.7 14 5 10 38 20 4:20 South Elementary School 40 20 9.3 32.9 17 1:20 11.7 14 5 10 36 20 2:50 11.7 14 5 10 35 20 4:15 West Elementary School 40 20 9.7 33.5 17 1:20 11.7 14 5 10 37 20 2:50 11.7 14 5 10 36 20 4:20 Fort Calhoun Elementary School 40 20 5.2 25.3 12 1:15 33.0 40 5 10 52 20 3:25 33.0 40 5 10 51 20 5:35 Fort Calhoun Jr.Sr. High School 40 20 5.5 18.8 18 1:20 33.0 40 5 10 53 20 3:30 33.0 40 5 10 52 20 5:40 Maximum ETE: 1:20 Maximum ETE: 3:30 Maximum ETE: 5:40 Average ETE: 1:15 Average ETE: 2:45 Average ETE: 4:15 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 822 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 89. School Evacuation Time Estimates Snow OneWave TwoWave ThreeWave Route Route Travel Travel Time Driver Route Driver Mobilizati Loading Length Speed Time ETE Distance to to H.S. Unload Rest Travel Loading ETE Distance to Travel Time Unload Rest Route Travel Loading ETE School on (min) Time (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (hr:min) H.S. (miles) (min) (min) (min) Time (min) Time (min) (hr:min) H.S. (miles) to H.S. (min) (min) (min) Time (min) Time (min) (hr:min)

Harrison County, IA Missouri Valley Elementary School 50 25 0.3 25.7 1 1:20 8.4 11 5 10 12 25 2:25 8.4 11 5 10 12 15 3:20 Missouri Valley High School 50 25 0.1 25.7 0 1:15 8.4 11 5 10 12 25 2:20 8.4 11 5 10 12 15 3:15 Missouri Valley Middle School 50 25 0.6 33.1 1 1:20 8.4 11 5 10 13 25 2:25 8.4 11 5 10 13 15 3:20 Washington County, NE Blair Arbor Park Middle School 50 25 10.3 29.0 21 1:40 11.6 16 5 10 42 25 3:20 11.6 16 5 10 41 25 5:00 Blair High School 50 25 10.5 29.2 22 1:40 11.7 16 5 10 43 25 3:20 11.7 16 5 10 41 25 5:00 Deerfield Elementary School 50 25 10.5 29.6 21 1:40 11.7 16 5 10 42 25 3:20 11.7 16 5 10 41 25 5:00 Gerald Otte Blair Middle School 50 25 11.0 29.2 23 1:40 11.7 16 5 10 44 25 3:20 11.7 16 5 10 42 25 5:00 North Elementary School 50 25 10.5 29.2 22 1:40 11.7 16 5 10 43 25 3:20 11.7 16 5 10 41 25 5:00 South Elementary School 50 25 9.3 29.7 19 1:35 11.7 16 5 10 38 25 3:10 11.7 16 5 10 38 25 4:45 West Elementary School 50 25 9.7 30.1 19 1:35 11.7 16 5 10 39 25 3:10 11.7 16 5 10 39 25 4:45 Fort Calhoun Elementary School 50 25 5.2 26.4 12 1:30 33.0 44 5 10 57 25 3:55 33.0 44 5 10 57 25 6:20 Fort Calhoun Jr.Sr. High School 50 25 5.5 24.2 14 1:30 33.0 44 5 10 58 25 3:55 33.0 44 5 10 57 25 6:20 Maximum ETE: 1:40 Maximum ETE: 3:55 Maximum ETE: 6:20 Average ETE: 1:35 Average ETE: 3:10 Average ETE: 4:45 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 823 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 810. Summary of TransitDependent Bus Routes No. of Length Route Buses Route Description (mi.)

1 1 US 75 NB, WB on US 30 28.6 US 75 SB, service side streets in Blair, US 30 2 5 42.3 WB N on SR 133, CR P30 to Kennard, W on US 3 1 26.7 30 US 75 SB, service side streets in Ft Calhoun, 4 2 40.8 US 75 SB CR 32 SB, SR 36 WB, N 168th NB, CR 42 EB, 5 1 44.1 N 96th St SB, SR 36 WB 6 1 US 30 EB 56.6 7 1 291st St WB, Austin Ave SB, US 30 EB 60.1 Austin Ave SB, 270th St EB, Hamlin Ave NB, 8 1 55.5 250th St EB, Loess Hills Trail SB, 260th St EB US 30 EB, service side streets in Missouri 9 1 53.9 Valley, US 30 EB 10 1 Desoto Ave EB, I29 SB, I680 EB 74.3 Total: 15 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 824 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 811. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather OneWave TwoWave Route Distance Travel Route Route Travel Pickup to Rec. Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE Ctr Rec. Ctr Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1 1 120 16.8 51.4 20 30 2:50 11.7 13 5 10 50 30 4:40 1,2,3 120 30.6 50.4 36 30 3:10 11.7 13 5 10 82 30 5:30 2

4,5 130 30.6 50.0 37 30 3:20 11.7 13 5 10 82 30 5:40 3 1 120 15.0 55.0 16 30 2:50 11.7 13 5 10 46 30 4:35 4 1,2 120 7.8 54.8 9 30 2:40 33.0 36 5 10 53 30 4:55 5 1 120 7.1 55.0 8 30 2:40 37.1 40 5 10 56 30 5:05 6 1 120 11.2 54.0 12 30 2:45 45.4 50 5 10 74 30 5:35 7 1 120 14.6 53.2 17 30 2:50 45.4 50 5 10 82 30 5:50 8 1 120 6.3 54.9 7 30 2:40 49.2 54 5 10 67 30 5:30 9 1 120 8.1 31.9 15 30 2:45 45.8 50 5 10 72 30 5:35 10 1 120 6.8 43.3 9 30 2:40 67.5 74 5 10 90 30 6:10 Maximum ETE: 3:20 Maximum ETE: 6:10 Average ETE: 2:50 Average ETE: 5:25 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 825 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 812. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Rain OneWave TwoWave Route Distance Travel Route Route Travel Pickup to Rec. Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE Ctr Rec. Ctr Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1 1 130 16.8 46.8 22 40 3:15 11.7 14 5 10 54 40 5:20 1,2,3 130 30.6 45.3 41 40 3:35 11.7 14 5 10 87 40 6:15 2

4,5 140 30.6 45.3 41 40 3:45 11.7 14 5 10 87 40 6:25 3 1 130 15.0 50.0 18 40 3:10 11.7 14 5 10 48 40 5:10 4 1,2 130 7.8 49.4 10 40 3:00 33.0 40 5 10 58 40 5:35 5 1 130 7.1 50.0 8 40 3:00 37.1 45 5 10 61 40 5:45 6 1 130 11.2 50.0 13 40 3:05 45.4 55 5 10 80 40 6:15 7 1 130 14.6 49.0 18 40 3:10 45.4 55 5 10 88 40 6:30 8 1 130 6.3 50.0 8 40 3:00 49.2 59 5 10 74 40 6:10 9 1 130 8.1 29.3 17 40 3:10 45.8 55 5 10 79 40 6:20 10 1 130 6.8 39.2 10 40 3:00 67.5 81 5 10 99 40 7:00 Maximum ETE: 3:45 Maximum ETE: 7:00 Average ETE: 3:15 Average ETE: 6:05 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 826 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 813. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates Snow OneWave TwoWave Route Distance Travel Route Route Travel Pickup to Rec. Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE Ctr Rec. Ctr Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1 1 140 16.8 41.2 25 50 3:35 11.7 16 5 10 58 50 5:55 1,2,3 140 30.6 40.5 45 50 3:55 11.7 16 5 10 94 50 6:50 2

4,5 150 30.6 40.2 46 50 4:10 11.7 16 5 10 93 50 7:05 3 1 140 15.0 44.6 20 50 3:30 11.7 16 5 10 52 50 5:45 4 1,2 140 7.8 43.9 11 50 3:25 33.0 44 5 10 63 50 6:20 5 1 140 7.1 45.0 9 50 3:20 37.1 49 5 10 67 50 6:25 6 1 140 11.2 43.3 16 50 3:30 45.4 61 5 10 88 50 7:05 7 1 140 14.6 41.4 21 50 3:35 45.4 61 5 10 96 50 7:20 8 1 140 6.3 44.0 9 50 3:20 49.2 66 5 10 81 50 6:55 9 1 140 8.1 26.2 19 50 3:30 45.8 61 5 10 86 50 7:05 10 1 140 6.8 34.8 12 50 3:25 67.5 90 5 10 109 50 7:50 Maximum ETE: 4:10 Maximum ETE: 7:50 Average ETE: 3:35 Average ETE: 6:50 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 827 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 814. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather Loading Travel Time Travel Rate to EPZ Travel Time to Time Mobilizatio (min per Total Loading Dist. To EPZ Boundary ETE Dist. To time to Unload Driver return to Returning Medical Facility Patient n (min) person) People Time (min) Bdry (mi) (min) (hr:min) M.H.F (mi) M.H.F (min) Rest (min) Facility to Facility Ambulatory 90 1 2 2 0.5 1 1:35 44.4 48 5 10 1 3:30 Alegent Health Community Memorial Hospital Wheelchair bound 90 5 2 10 0.5 1 1:45 44.4 48 5 10 1 3:40 Culivan Heights Ambulatory 90 1 52 30 0.7 1 2:05 45.4 50 5 10 1 4:00 Ambulatory 90 1 15 15 0.6 1 1:50 45.4 50 5 10 1 3:45 Kovar Court Wheelchair bound 90 5 9 45 0.6 1 2:20 45.4 50 5 10 1 4:15 Ambulatory 90 1 65 30 0.7 1 2:05 17.2 19 5 10 1 3:00 Longview Home Wheelchair bound 90 5 65 60 0.7 1 2:35 17.2 19 5 10 1 3:30 Ambulatory 90 1 13 13 11.0 14 2:00 11.8 13 5 10 12 2:55 Carter House Wheelchair bound 90 5 2 10 11.0 15 1:55 11.8 13 5 10 12 2:50 Ambulatory 90 1 57 30 9.6 11 2:15 11.7 13 5 10 10 3:10 Crowell Memorial Home Wheelchair bound 90 5 55 60 9.6 11 2:45 11.7 13 5 10 10 3:40 Ambulatory 90 1 38 30 10.2 11 2:15 11.7 13 5 10 11 3:10 Good Shepherd Lutheran Home Wheelchair bound 90 5 38 60 10.2 12 2:45 11.7 13 5 10 11 3:40 Memorial Community Hospital Wheelchair bound 90 5 1 5 10.1 13 1:50 11.7 13 5 10 11 2:45 Autumn Pointe Assisted Living Community Ambulatory 90 1 32 30 5.3 6 2:10 33.0 36 5 10 6 3:45 1st Wave Average 29 5.4 7 2:10 25.0 27 5 10 6 3:25 2nd Wave Average 29 5.4 7 4:05 25.0 27 5 10 6 5:20 3rd Wave Average 29 5.4 7 6:00 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 828 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 815. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Rain Loading Travel Time Travel Rate to EPZ Travel Time to Time Mobilizatio (min per Total Loading Dist. To EPZ Boundary ETE Dist. To time to Unload Driver return to Returning Medical Facility Patient n (min) person) People Time (min) Bdry (mi) (min) (hr:min) M.H.F (mi) M.H.F (min) Rest (min) Facility to Facility Ambulatory 100 1 2 2 0.5 1 1:45 44.4 53 5 10 1 3:50 Alegent Health Community Memorial Hospital Wheelchair bound 100 5 2 10 0.5 1 1:55 44.4 53 5 10 1 4:00 Culivan Heights Ambulatory 100 1 52 30 0.7 1 2:15 45.4 54 5 10 1 4:20 Ambulatory 100 1 15 15 0.6 1 2:00 45.4 54 5 10 1 4:05 Kovar Court Wheelchair bound 100 5 9 45 0.6 1 2:30 45.4 54 5 10 1 4:35 Ambulatory 100 1 65 30 0.7 1 2:15 17.2 21 5 10 1 3:15 Longview Home Wheelchair bound 100 5 65 60 0.7 1 2:45 17.2 21 5 10 1 3:45 Ambulatory 100 1 13 13 11.0 15 2:10 11.8 14 5 10 13 3:10 Carter House Wheelchair bound 100 5 2 10 11.0 15 2:05 11.8 14 5 10 13 3:05 Ambulatory 100 1 57 30 9.6 12 2:25 11.7 14 5 10 12 3:20 Crowell Memorial Home Wheelchair bound 100 5 55 60 9.6 12 2:55 11.7 14 5 10 12 3:50 Ambulatory 100 1 38 30 10.2 12 2:25 11.7 14 5 10 12 3:25 Good Shepherd Lutheran Home Wheelchair bound 100 5 38 60 10.2 13 2:55 11.7 14 5 10 12 3:55 Memorial Community Hospital Wheelchair bound 100 5 1 5 10.1 14 2:00 11.7 14 5 10 12 3:00 Autumn Pointe Assisted Living Community Ambulatory 100 1 32 30 5.3 6 2:20 33.0 40 5 10 6 4:05 1st Wave Average 29 5.4 7 2:20 25.0 30 5 10 7 3:45 2nd Wave Average 29 5.4 7 4:25 25.0 30 5 10 7 5:50 3rd Wave Average 29 5.4 7 6:30 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 829 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 816. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Snow Loading Travel Time Travel Rate to EPZ Travel Time to Time Mobilizatio (min per Total Loading Dist. To EPZ Boundary ETE Dist. To time to Unload Driver return to Returning Medical Facility Patient n (min) person) People Time (min) Bdry (mi) (min) (hr:min) M.H.F (mi) M.H.F (min) Rest (min) Facility to Facility Ambulatory 110 1 2 2 0.5 1 1:55 44.4 59 5 10 1 4:10 Alegent Health Community Memorial Hospital Wheelchair bound 110 5 2 10 0.5 1 2:05 44.4 59 5 10 1 4:20 Culivan Heights Ambulatory 110 1 52 30 0.7 1 2:25 45.4 61 5 10 1 4:45 Ambulatory 110 1 15 15 0.6 1 2:10 45.4 61 5 10 1 4:30 Kovar Court Wheelchair bound 110 5 9 45 0.6 1 2:40 45.4 61 5 10 1 5:00 Ambulatory 110 1 65 30 0.7 2 2:25 17.2 23 5 10 1 3:30 Longview Home Wheelchair bound 110 5 65 60 0.7 2 2:55 17.2 23 5 10 1 4:00 Ambulatory 110 1 13 13 11.0 17 2:20 11.8 16 5 10 15 3:25 Carter House Wheelchair bound 110 5 2 10 11.0 17 2:20 11.8 16 5 10 15 3:25 Ambulatory 110 1 57 30 9.6 13 2:35 11.7 16 5 10 13 3:35 Crowell Memorial Home Wheelchair bound 110 5 55 60 9.6 13 3:05 11.7 16 5 10 13 4:05 Ambulatory 110 1 38 30 10.2 14 2:35 11.7 16 5 10 14 3:35 Good Shepherd Lutheran Home Wheelchair bound 110 5 38 60 10.2 14 3:05 11.7 16 5 10 14 4:05 Memorial Community Hospital Wheelchair bound 110 5 1 5 10.1 15 2:10 11.7 16 5 10 13 3:10 Autumn Pointe Assisted Living Community Ambulatory 110 1 32 30 5.3 7 2:30 33.0 44 5 10 7 4:25 1st Wave Average 29 5.4 8 2:30 25.0 33 5 10 7 4:00 2nd Wave Average 29 5.4 8 4:40 25.0 33 5 10 7 6:10 3rd Wave Average 29 5.4 8 6:50 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 830 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 817. Homebound Special Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates Total Travel Mobiliza Loading Loading Time to People tion Time at Travel to Time at EPZ Requiring Vehicles Weather Time 1st Stop Subsequent Subsequent Boundary ETE Vehicle Type Vehicle deployed Stops Conditions (min) (min) Stops (min) Stops (min) (min) (hr:min)

Good 90 18 6 2:10 Wheelchair 9 3 3 Rain 100 5 20 10 7 2:25 Vans Snow 110 22 7 2:35 Good 90 0 6 1:55 Ambulances 3 3 1 Rain 100 15 0 0 7 2:05 Snow 110 0 7 2:15 Maximum ETE: 2:35 Average ETE: 2:15 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 831 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

9 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY This section discusses the suggested traffic control and management strategy that is designed to expedite the movement of evacuating traffic. The resources required to implement this strategy include:

Personnel with the capabilities of performing the planned control functions of traffic guides (preferably, not necessarily, law enforcement officers).

Traffic Control Devices to assist these personnel in the performance of their tasks. These devices should comply with the guidance of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the U.S.D.O.T. All state and most county transportation agencies have access to the MUTCD, which is available online: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov which provides access to the official PDF version.

A plan that defines all locations, provides necessary details and is documented in a format that is readily understood by those assigned to perform traffic control.

The functions to be performed in the field are:

1. Facilitate evacuating traffic movements that safely expedite travel out of the EPZ.

2. Discourage traffic movements that move evacuating vehicles in a direction which takes them significantly closer to the power plant, or which interferes with the efficient flow of other evacuees.

The terms "facilitate" and "discourage" are employed rather than "enforce" and "prohibit" to indicate the need for flexibility in performing the traffic control function. There are always legitimate reasons for a driver to prefer a direction other than that indicated. For example:

A driver may be traveling home from work or from another location, to join other family members prior to evacuating.

An evacuating driver may be travelling to pick up a relative, or other evacuees.

The driver may be an emergency worker en route to perform an important activity.

The implementation of a plan must also be flexible enough for the application of sound judgment by the traffic guide.

The traffic management plan is the outcome of the following process:

1. The existing TCPs and ACPs identified by the offsite agencies in their existing emergency plans serve as the basis of the traffic management plan, as per NUREG/CR7002.

2. Computer analysis of the evacuation traffic flow environment (see Figures 73 through 76).

This analysis identifies the best routing and those critical intersections that experience pronounced congestion. Any critical intersections that are not identified in the existing offsite plans are suggested as additional TCPs and ACPs

3. The existing TCPs and ACPs, and how they were applied in this study, are discussed in Appendix G.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 91 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

4. Prioritization of TCPs and ACPs.

Application of traffic and access control at some TCPs and ACPs will have a more pronounced influence on expediting traffic movements than at other TCPs and ACPs. For example, TCPs controlling traffic originating from areas in close proximity to the power plant could have a more beneficial effect on minimizing potential exposure to radioactivity than those TCPs located far from the power plant. As shown in Figures 73 through 76, traffic congestion is concentrated in Blair. Those existing ACPs in Blair should be considered top priority when assigning personnel and equipment for traffic and access control.

The use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies (if available) can reduce manpower and equipment needs, while still facilitating the evacuation process. Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) can be placed within the EPZ to provide information to travelers regarding traffic conditions, route selection, and assistance center information. DMS can also be placed outside of the EPZ to warn motorists to avoid using routes that may conflict with the flow of evacuees away from the power plant. Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) can be used to broadcast information to evacuees en route through their vehicle stereo systems. Automated Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) can also be used to provide evacuees with information.

Internet websites can provide traffic and evacuation route information before the evacuee begins their trip, while on board navigation systems (GPS units), cell phones, and pagers can be used to provide information en route. These are only several examples of how ITS technologies can benefit the evacuation process. Consideration should be given that ITS technologies be used to facilitate the evacuation process, and any additional signage placed should consider evacuation needs.

The ETE analysis treated all controlled intersections that are existing TCP or ACP locations in the offsite agency plans as being controlled by actuated signals.

Chapters 2N and 5G, and Part 6 of the 2009 MUTCD are particularly relevant and should be reviewed during emergency response training.

The ETE calculations reflect the assumption that all externalexternal trips are interdicted and diverted after 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months have elapsed from the ATE.

All transit vehicles and other responders entering the EPZ to support the evacuation are assumed to be unhindered by personnel manning ACPs and TCPs.

Study Assumptions 5 and 6 in Section 2.3 discuss ACP and TCP staffing schedules and operations.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 92 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

10 EVACUATION ROUTES Evacuation routes are comprised of two distinct components:

Routing from a Sub Area being evacuated to the boundary of the Evacuation Region and thence out of the EPZ.

Routing of transitdependent evacuees from the EPZ boundary to registration centers.

Evacuees will select routes within the EPZ in such a way as to minimize their exposure to risk.

This expectation is met by the DYNEV II model routing traffic away from the location of the plant, to the extent practicable. The DTRAD model satisfies this behavior by routing traffic so as to balance traffic demand relative to the available highway capacity to the extent possible.

See Appendices B through D for further discussion.

The routing of transitdependent evacuees from the EPZ boundary to registration centers or host facilities is designed to minimize the amount of travel outside the EPZ, from the points where these routes cross the EPZ boundary.

Figure 101 presents a map showing registration centers and host facilities for evacuees. The major evacuation routes for the EPZ are presented in Figure 102.

It is assumed that all school evacuees will be taken to the appropriate host school and subsequently picked up by parents or guardians. Transitdependent evacuees are transported to the nearest registration center. This study does not consider the transport of evacuees from registration centers to congregate care centers, if the counties do make the decision to relocate evacuees.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant 101 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 101. Registration Centers and Host Facilities Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant 102 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 102. Evacuation Route Map Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant 103 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

11 SURVEILLANCE OF EVACUATION OPERATIONS There is a need for surveillance of traffic operations during the evacuation. There is also a need to clear any blockage of roadways arising from accidents or vehicle disablement. Surveillance can take several forms.

1. Traffic control personnel, located at Traffic Control and Access Control points, provide fixedpoint surveillance.

2. Ground patrols may be undertaken along welldefined paths to ensure coverage of those highways that serve as major evacuation routes.

3. Aerial surveillance of evacuation operations may also be conducted using helicopter or fixedwing aircraft, if available.

4. Cellular phone calls (if cellular coverage exists) from motorists may also provide direct field reports of road blockages.

These concurrent surveillance procedures are designed to provide coverage of the entire EPZ as well as the area around its periphery. It is the responsibility of the counties to support an emergency response system that can receive messages from the field and be in a position to respond to any reported problems in a timely manner. This coverage should quickly identify, and expedite the response to any blockage caused by a disabled vehicle.

Tow Vehicles In a lowspeed traffic environment, any vehicle disablement is likely to arise due to a lowspeed collision, mechanical failure or the exhaustion of its fuel supply. In any case, the disabled vehicle can be pushed onto the shoulder, thereby restoring traffic flow. Past experience in other emergencies indicates that evacuees who are leaving an area often perform activities such as pushing a disabled vehicle to the side of the road without prompting.

While the need for tow vehicles is expected to be low under the circumstances described above, it is still prudent to be prepared for such a need. Consideration should be given that tow trucks with a supply of gasoline be deployed at strategic locations within, or just outside, the EPZ. These locations should be selected so that:

They permit access to key, heavily loaded, evacuation routes.

Responding tow trucks would most likely travel counterflow relative to evacuating traffic.

Consideration should also be given that the state and local emergency management agencies encourage gas stations to remain open during the evacuation.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant 111 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

12 CONFIRMATION TIME It is necessary to confirm that the evacuation process is effective in the sense that the public is complying with the Advisory to Evacuate. The EPZ county radiological emergency plans do not discuss a procedure for confirming evacuation. Should procedures not already exist, the following alternative or complementary approach is suggested.

The suggested procedure employs a stratified random sample and a telephone survey. The size of the sample is dependent on the expected number of households that do not comply with the Advisory to Evacuate. It is reasonable to assume for the purpose of estimating sample size that at least 80 percent of the population within the EPZ will comply with the Advisory to Evacuate.

On this basis, an analysis could be undertaken (see Table 121) to yield an estimated sample size of approximately 300.

The confirmation process should start at about 21/2 hours after the Advisory to Evacuate, which is when approximately 90 percent of resident evacuees have completed their mobilization activities (see Table 59). At this time, virtually all evacuees will have departed on their respective trips and the local telephone system will be largely free of traffic.

As indicated in Table 121, approximately 71/2 person hours are needed to complete the telephone survey. If six people are assigned to this task, each dialing a different set of telephone exchanges (e.g., each person can be assigned a different set of Sub Areas), then the confirmation process will extend over a timeframe of about 75 minutes. Thus, the confirmation should be completed before the evacuated area is cleared. Of course, fewer people would be needed for this survey if the Evacuation Region were only a portion of the EPZ. Use of modern automated computer controlled dialing equipment or other technologies (e.g., reverse 911 or equivalent if available) can significantly reduce the manpower requirements and the time required to undertake this type of confirmation survey.

If this method is indeed used by the offsite agencies, consideration should be given to maintain a list of telephone numbers within the EPZ in the EOC at all times. Such a list could be purchased from vendors and could be periodically updated. As indicated above, the confirmation process should not begin until 21/2 hours after the Advisory to Evacuate, to ensure that households have had enough time to mobilize. This 21/2hour timeframe will enable telephone operators to arrive at their workplace, obtain a call list and prepare to make the necessary phone calls.

Should the number of telephone responses (i.e., people still at home) exceed 20 percent, then the telephone survey should be repeated after an hour's interval until the confirmation process is completed.

Other techniques could also be considered. After traffic volumes decline, the personnel manning TCPs can be redeployed to travel through residential areas to observe and to confirm evacuation activities.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 121 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 121. Estimated Number of Telephone Calls Required for Confirmation of Evacuation Problem Definition Estimate number of phone calls, n, needed to ascertain the proportion, F of households that have not evacuated.

Reference:

Burstein, H., Attribute Sampling, McGraw Hill, 1971 Given:

No. of households plus other facilities, N, within the EPZ (est.) = 7,900 Est. proportion, F, of households that will not evacuate = 0.20 Allowable error margin, e: 0.05 Confidence level, : 0.95 (implies A = 1.96)

Applying Table 10 of cited reference, 0.25; 1 0.75 308 Finite population correction:

297 1

Thus, some 300 telephone calls will confirm that approximately 20 percent of the population has not evacuated. If only 10 percent of the population does not comply with the Advisory to Evacuate, then the required sample size, nF = 210.

Est. Person Hours to complete 300 telephone calls Assume:

Time to dial using touch tone (random selection of listed numbers): 30 seconds Time for 6 rings (no answer): 36 seconds Time for 4 rings plus short conversation: 60 sec.

Interval between calls: 20 sec.

Person Hours:

300 30 0.8 36 0.2 60 20 7.6 3600 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 122 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

13 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are offered:

1. Examination of the general population ETE in Section 7 shows that the ETE for 100 percent of the population is generally 2 to 5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months longer than for 90 percent of the population. Specifically, the additional time needed for the last 10 percent of the population to evacuate can be as much as double the time needed to evacuate 90 percent of the population. This nonlinearity reflects the fact that these relatively few stragglers require significantly more time to mobilize (i.e. prepare for the evacuation trip) than their neighbors. This leads to two recommendations:

a. The public outreach (information) program should emphasize the need for evacuees to minimize the time needed to prepare to evacuate (secure the home, assemble needed clothes, medicines, etc.).

b. The decision makers should reference Table 71 which list the time needed to evacuate 90 percent of the population, when preparing recommended protective actions, as per NUREG/CR7002 guidance.

2. Staged evacuation is not beneficial due to the low population within the 2 and 5mile regions of the plant and the limited traffic congestion within these regions.

3. Counties should implement procedures whereby schools are contacted prior to dispatch of buses from the depots to get an accurate count of students needing transportation and the number of buses required (See Section 8).

4. Table 85 indicates that there are enough ambulances available to evacuate the bedridden population within the EPZ in a single wave; however, there are not enough buses and wheelchair vans to evacuate the ambulatory and wheelchair bound population in a single wave. Mutual aid agreements with neighboring counties and assistance from the state should be considered to address the shortfall in transportation resources (See Sections 8.4 and 8.5).

5. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) such as Dynamic Message Signs (DMS), Highway Advisory Radio (HAR), Automated Traveler Information Systems (ATIS), etc. should be used to facilitate the evacuation process (See Section 9). The placement of additional signage should consider evacuation needs.

6. Counties/States should establish strategic locations to position tow trucks provided with gasoline containers in the event of a disabled vehicle during the evacuation process (see Section 11) and should encourage gas stations to remain open during the evacuation.

7. Counties/states should establish a system/procedure to confirm that the Advisory to Evacuate is being adhered to (see the approach suggested by KLD in Section 12). Should the approach recommended by KLD in Section 12 be used, consideration should be given to keep a list of telephone numbers within the EPZ in the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) at all times.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station 131 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX A Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms

A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERMS Table A1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms Term Definition Analysis Network A graphical representation of the geometric topology of a physical roadway system, which is comprised of directional links and nodes.

Link A network link represents a specific, onedirectional section of roadway. A link has both physical (length, number of lanes, topology, etc.) and operational (turn movement percentages, service rate, freeflow speed) characteristics.

Measures of Effectiveness Statistics describing traffic operations on a roadway network.

Node A network node generally represents an intersection of network links. A node has control characteristics, i.e., the allocation of service time to each approach link.

Origin A location attached to a network link, within the EPZ or Shadow Region, where trips are generated at a specified rate in vehicles per hour (vph). These trips enter the roadway system to travel to their respective destinations.

Prevailing Roadway and Relates to the physical features of the roadway, the nature (e.g.,

Traffic Conditions composition) of traffic on the roadway and the ambient conditions (weather, visibility, pavement conditions, etc.).

Service Rate Maximum rate at which vehicles, executing a specific turn maneuver, can be discharged from a section of roadway at the prevailing conditions, expressed in vehicles per second (vps) or vehicles per hour (vph).

Service Volume Maximum number of vehicles which can pass over a section of roadway in one direction during a specified time period with operating conditions at a specified Level of Service (The Service Volume at the upper bound of Level of Service, E, equals Capacity).

Service Volume is usually expressed as vehicles per hour (vph).

Signal Cycle Length The total elapsed time to display all signal indications, in sequence.

The cycle length is expressed in seconds.

Signal Interval A single combination of signal indications. The interval duration is expressed in seconds. A signal phase is comprised of a sequence of signal intervals, usually green, yellow, red.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station A1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Term Definition Signal Phase A set of signal indications (and intervals) which services a particular combination of traffic movements on selected approaches to the intersection. The phase duration is expressed in seconds.

Traffic (Trip) Assignment A process of assigning traffic to paths of travel in such a way as to satisfy all trip objectives (i.e., the desire of each vehicle to travel from a specified origin in the network to a specified destination) and to optimize some stated objective or combination of objectives. In general, the objective is stated in terms of minimizing a generalized "cost". For example, "cost" may be expressed in terms of travel time.

Traffic Density The number of vehicles that occupy one lane of a roadway section of specified length at a point in time, expressed as vehicles per mile (vpm).

Traffic (Trip) Distribution A process for determining the destinations of all traffic generated at the origins. The result often takes the form of a Trip Table, which is a matrix of origindestination traffic volumes.

Traffic Simulation A computer model designed to replicate the realworld operation of vehicles on a roadway network, so as to provide statistics describing traffic performance. These statistics are called Measures of Effectiveness.

Traffic Volume The number of vehicles that pass over a section of roadway in one direction, expressed in vehicles per hour (vph). Where applicable, traffic volume may be stratified by turn movement.

Travel Mode Distinguishes between private auto, bus, rail, pedestrian and air travel modes.

Trip Table or Origin A rectangular matrix or table, whose entries contain the number Destination Matrix of trips generated at each specified origin, during a specified time period, that are attracted to (and travel toward) each of its specified destinations. These values are expressed in vehicles per hour (vph) or in vehicles.

Turning Capacity The capacity associated with that component of the traffic stream which executes a specified turn maneuver from an approach at an intersection.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station A2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX B DTRAD: Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution Model

B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL This section describes the integrated dynamic trip assignment and distribution model named DTRAD (Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution) that is expressly designed for use in analyzing evacuation scenarios. DTRAD employs logitbased pathchoice principles and is one of the models of the DYNEVII System. The DTRAD module implements pathbased Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) so that time dependent OriginDestination (OD) trips are assigned to routes over the network based on prevailing traffic conditions.

To apply the DYNEV II System, the analyst must specify the highway network, link capacity information, the timevarying volume of traffic generated at all origin centroids and, optionally, a set of accessible candidate destination nodes on the periphery of the EPZ for selected origins.

DTRAD calculates the optimal dynamic trip distribution (i.e., trip destinations) and the optimal dynamic trip assignment (i.e., trip routing) of the traffic generated at each origin node traveling to its set of candidate destination nodes, so as to minimize evacuee travel cost.

Overview of Integrated Distribution and Assignment Model The underlying premise is that the selection of destinations and routes is intrinsically coupled in an evacuation scenario. That is, people in vehicles seek to travel out of an area of potential risk as rapidly as possible by selecting the best routes. The model is designed to identify these best routes in a manner that realistically distributes vehicles from origins to destinations and routes them over the highway network, in a consistent and optimal manner, reflecting evacuee behavior.

For each origin, a set of candidate destination nodes is selected by the software logic and by the analyst to reflect the desire by evacuees to travel away from the power plant and to access major highways. The specific destination nodes within this set that are selected by travelers and the selection of the connecting paths of travel, are both determined by DTRAD. This determination is made by a logitbased path choice model in DTRAD, so as to minimize the trip cost, as discussed later.

The traffic loading on the network and the consequent operational traffic environment of the network (density, speed, throughput on each link) vary over time as the evacuation takes place.

The DTRAD model, which is interfaced with the DYNEV simulation model, executes a succession of sessions wherein it computes the optimal routing and selection of destination nodes for the conditions that exist at that time.

Interfacing the DYNEV Simulation Model with DTRAD The DYNEV II system reflects NRC guidance that evacuees will seek to travel in a general direction away from the location of the hazardous event. An algorithm was developed to support the DTRAD model in dynamically varying the Trip Table (OD matrix) over time from one DTRAD session to the next. Another algorithm executes a mapping from the specified geometric network (linknode analysis network) that represents the physical highway system, to a path network that represents the vehicle [turn] movements. DTRAD computations are performed on the path network: DYNEV simulation model, on the geometric network.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station B1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

DTRAD Description DTRAD is the DTA module for the DYNEV II System.

When the road network under study is large, multiple routing options are usually available between trip origins and destinations. The problem of loading traffic demands and propagating them over the network links is called Network Loading and is addressed by DYNEVII using macroscopic traffic simulation modeling. Traffic assignment deals with computing the distribution of the traffic over the road network for given OD demands and is a model of the route choice of the drivers. Travel demand changes significantly over time, and the road network may have time dependent characteristics, e.g., timevarying signal timing or reduced road capacity because of lane closure, or traffic congestion. To consider these time dependencies, DTA procedures are required.

The DTRAD DTA module represents the dynamic route choice behavior of drivers, using the specification of dynamic origindestination matrices as flow input. Drivers choose their routes through the network based on the travel cost they experience (as determined by the simulation model). This allows traffic to be distributed over the network according to the timedependent conditions. The modeling principles of DTRAD include:

It is assumed that drivers not only select the best route (i.e., lowest cost path) but some also select less attractive routes. The algorithm implemented by DTRAD archives several efficient routes for each OD pair from which the drivers choose.

The choice of one route out of a set of possible routes is an outcome of discrete choice modeling. Given a set of routes and their generalized costs, the percentages of drivers that choose each route is computed. The most prevalent model for discrete choice modeling is the logit model. DTRAD uses a variant of PathSizeLogit model (PSL). PSL overcomes the drawback of the traditional multinomial logit model by incorporating an additional deterministic path size correction term to address path overlapping in the random utility expression.

DTRAD executes the TA algorithm on an abstract network representation called "the path network" which is built from the actual physical linknode analysis network. This execution continues until a stable situation is reached: the volumes and travel times on the edges of the path network do not change significantly from one iteration to the next. The criteria for this convergence are defined by the user.

Travel cost plays a crucial role in route choice. In DTRAD, path cost is a linear summation of the generalized cost of each link that comprises the path. The generalized cost for a link, a, is expressed as ca ta la sa ,

where ca is the generalized cost for link a, and , , and are cost coefficients for link travel time, distance, and supplemental cost, respectively. Distance and supplemental costs are defined as invariant properties of the network model, while travel time is a dynamic property dictated by prevailing traffic conditions. The DYNEV simulation model Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station B2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

computes travel times on all edges in the network and DTRAD uses that information to constantly update the costs of paths. The route choice decision model in the next simulation iteration uses these updated values to adjust the route choice behavior. This way, traffic demands are dynamically reassigned based on time dependent conditions.

The interaction between the DTRAD traffic assignment and DYNEV II simulation models is depicted in Figure B1. Each round of interaction is called a Traffic Assignment Session (TA session). A TA session is composed of multiple iterations, marked as loop B in the figure.

The supplemental cost is based on the survival distribution (a variation of the exponential distribution).The Inverse Survival Function is a cost term in DTRAD to represent the potential risk of travel toward the plant:

sa = ln (p), 0 p l ; 0 p=

dn = Distance of node, n, from the plant d0 =Distance from the plant where there is zero risk

= Scaling factor The value of do = 15 miles, the outer distance of the shadow region. Note that the supplemental cost, sa, of link, a, is (high, low), if its downstream node, n, is (near, far from) the power plant.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station B3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Network Equilibrium In 1952, John Wardrop wrote:

Under equilibrium conditions traffic arranges itself in congested networks in such a way that no individual tripmaker can reduce his path costs by switching routes.

The above statement describes the User Equilibrium definition, also called the Selfish Driver Equilibrium. It is a hypothesis that represents a [hopeful] condition that evolves over time as drivers search out alternative routes to identify those routes that minimize their respective costs. It has been found that this equilibrium objective to minimize costs is largely realized by most drivers who routinely take the same trip over the same network at the same time (i.e.,

commuters). Effectively, such drivers learn which routes are best for them over time. Thus, the traffic environment settles down to a nearequilibrium state.

Clearly, since an emergency evacuation is a sudden, unique event, it does not constitute a long term learning experience which can achieve an equilibrium state. Consequently, DTRAD was not designed as an equilibrium solution, but to represent drivers in a new and unfamiliar situation, who respond in a flexible manner to realtime information (either broadcast or observed) in such a way as to minimize their respective costs of travel.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station B4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Start of next DTRAD Session A

Set T0 Clock time.

Archive System State at T0 Define latest Link Turn Percentages Execute Simulation Model from B time, T0 to T1 (burn time)

Provide DTRAD with link MOE at time, T1 Execute DTRAD iteration; Get new Turn Percentages Retrieve System State at T0 ;

Apply new Link Turn Percents DTRAD iteration converges?

No Yes Next iteration Simulate from T0 to T2 (DTA session duration)

Set Clock to T2 B A Figure B1. Flow Diagram of SimulationDTRAD Interface Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station B5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX C DYNEV Traffic Simulation Model

C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIMULATION MODEL The DYNEV traffic simulation model is a macroscopic model that describes the operations of traffic flow in terms of aggregate variables: vehicles, flow rate, mean speed, volume, density, queue length, on each link, for each turn movement, during each Time Interval (simulation time step). The model generates trips from sources and from Entry Links and introduces them onto the analysis network at rates specified by the analyst based on the mobilization time distributions. The model simulates the movements of all vehicles on all network links over time until the network is empty. At intervals, the model outputs Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) such as those listed in Table C1.

Model Features Include:

Explicit consideration is taken of the variation in density over the time step; an iterative procedure is employed to calculate an average density over the simulation time step for the purpose of computing a mean speed for moving vehicles.

Multiple turn movements can be serviced on one link; a separate algorithm is used to estimate the number of (fractional) lanes assigned to the vehicles performing each turn movement, based, in part, on the turn percentages provided by the DTRAD model.

At any point in time, traffic flow on a link is subdivided into two classifications: queued and moving vehicles. The number of vehicles in each classification is computed. Vehicle spillback, stratified by turn movement for each network link, is explicitly considered and quantified. The propagation of stopping waves from link to link is computed within each time step of the simulation. There is no vertical stacking of queues on a link.

Any link can accommodate source flow from zones via side streets and parking facilities that are not explicitly represented. This flow represents the evacuating trips that are generated at the source.

The relation between the number of vehicles occupying the link and its storage capacity is monitored every time step for every link and for every turn movement. If the available storage capacity on a link is exceeded by the demand for service, then the simulator applies a metering rate to the entering traffic from both the upstream feeders and source node to ensure that the available storage capacity is not exceeded.

A path network that represents the specified traffic movements from each network link is constructed by the model; this path network is utilized by the DTRAD model.

A twoway interface with DTRAD: (1) provides link travel times; (2) receives data that translates into link turn percentages.

Provides MOE to animation software, EVAN Calculates ETE statistics Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station C1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

All traffic simulation models are dataintensive. Table C2 outlines the necessary input data elements.

To provide an efficient framework for defining these specifications, the physical highway environment is represented as a network. The unidirectional links of the network represent roadway sections: rural, multilane, urban streets or freeways. The nodes of the network generally represent intersections or points along a section where a geometric property changes (e.g. a lane drop, change in grade or free flow speed).

Figure C1 is an example of a small network representation. The freeway is defined by the sequence of links, (20,21), (21,22), and (22,23). Links (8001, 19) and (3, 8011) are Entry and Exit links, respectively. An arterial extends from node 3 to node 19 and is partially subsumed within a grid network. Note that links (21,22) and (17,19) are gradeseparated.

Table C1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II Measure Units Applies To Vehicles Discharged Vehicles Link, Network, Exit Link Speed Miles/Hours (mph) Link, Network Density Vehicles/Mile/Lane Link Level of Service LOS Link Content Vehicles Network Travel Time Vehiclehours Network Evacuated Vehicles Vehicles Network, Exit Link Trip Travel Time Vehicleminutes/trip Network Capacity Utilization Percent Exit Link Attraction Percent of total evacuating vehicles Exit Link Max Queue Vehicles Node, Approach Time of Max Queue Hours:minutes Node, Approach Length (mi); Mean Speed (mph); Travel Route Statistics Route Time (min)

Mean Travel Time Minutes Evacuation Trips; Network Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station C2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table C2. Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model HIGHWAY NETWORK Links defined by upstream and downstream node numbers Link lengths Number of lanes (up to 9) and channelization Turn bays (1 to 3 lanes)

Destination (exit) nodes Network topology defined in terms of downstream nodes for each receiving link Node Coordinates (X,Y)

Nuclear Power Plant Coordinates (X,Y)

GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES On all entry links and source nodes (origins), by Time Period TRAFFIC CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS Traffic signals: linkspecific, turn movement specific Signal control treated as fixed time or actuated Location of traffic control points (these are represented as actuated signals)

Stop and Yield signs Rightturnonred (RTOR)

Route diversion specifications Turn restrictions Lane control (e.g. lane closure, movementspecific)

DRIVERS AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Drivers (vehiclespecific) response mechanisms: freeflow speed, discharge headway Bus route designation.

DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT Candidate destination nodes for each origin (optional)

Duration of DTA sessions Duration of simulation burn time Desired number of destination nodes per origin INCIDENTS Identify and Schedule of closed lanes Identify and Schedule of closed links Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station C3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

8011 8009 2 3 8104 8107 6 5 8008 8010 8 9 10 8007 8012 12 11 8006 8005 13 14 8014 15 25 8004 16 24 8024 17 8003 23 22 21 20 8002 Entry, Exit Nodes are 19 numbered 8xxx 8001 Figure C1. Representative Analysis Network Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station C4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

C.1 Methodology C.1.1 The Fundamental Diagram It is necessary to define the fundamental diagram describing flowdensity and speeddensity relationships. Rather than settling for a triangular representation, a more realistic representation that includes a capacity drop, (IR)Qmax, at the critical density when flow conditions enter the forced flow regime, is developed and calibrated for each link. This representation, shown in Figure C2, asserts a constant free speed up to a density, k , and then a linear reduction in speed in the range, k k k 45 vpm, the density at capacity. In the flowdensity plane, a quadratic relationship is prescribed in the range, k k 95 vpm which roughly represents the stopandgo condition of severe congestion. The value of flow rate, Q , corresponding to k , is approximated at 0.7 RQ . A linear relationship between k and k completes the diagram shown in Figure C2. Table C3 is a glossary of terms.

The fundamental diagram is applied to moving traffic on every link. The specified calibration values for each link are: (1) Free speed, v ; (2) Capacity, Q ; (3) Critical density, k 45 vpm ; (4) Capacity Drop Factor, R = 0.9 ; (5) Jam density, k . Then, v , k k

. Setting k k k , then Q RQ k for 0 k k 50 . It can be shown that Q 0.98 0.0056 k RQ for k k k , where k 50 and k 175.

C.1.2 The Simulation Model The simulation model solves a sequence of unit problems. Each unit problem computes the movement of traffic on a link, for each specified turn movement, over a specified time interval (TI) which serves as the simulation time step for all links. Figure C3 is a representation of the unit problem in the timedistance plane. Table C3 is a glossary of terms that are referenced in the following description of the unit problem procedure.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station C5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Volume, vph Capacity Drop Qmax R Qmax Qs Density, vpm Flow Regimes Speed, mph Free Forced vf R vc Density, vpm kf kc kj ks Figure C2. Fundamental Diagrams Distance OQ OM OE Down Qb vQ Qe v

v L

Mb Me Up t1 t2 Time E1 E2 TI Figure C3. A UNIT Problem Configuration with t1 > 0 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station C6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table C3. Glossary The maximum number of vehicles, of a particular movement, that can discharge Cap from a link within a time interval.

The number of vehicles, of a particular movement, that enter the link over the E

time interval. The portion, ETI, can reach the stopbar within the TI.

The green time: cycle time ratio that services the vehicles of a particular turn G/C movement on a link.

h The mean queue discharge headway, seconds.

k Density in vehicles per lane per mile.

The average density of moving vehicles of a particular movement over a TI, on a k

link.

L The length of the link in feet.

The queue length in feet of a particular movement, at the [beginning, end] of a L ,L time interval.

The number of lanes, expressed as a floating point number, allocated to service a LN particular movement on a link.

L The mean effective length of a queued vehicle including the vehicle spacing, feet.

M Metering factor (Multiplier): 1.

The number of moving vehicles on the link, of a particular movement, that are M ,M moving at the [beginning, end] of the time interval. These vehicles are assumed to be of equal spacing, over the length of link upstream of the queue.

The total number of vehicles of a particular movement that are discharged from a O

link over a time interval.

The components of the vehicles of a particular movement that are discharged from a link within a time interval: vehicles that were Queued at the beginning of O ,O ,O the TI; vehicles that were Moving within the link at the beginning of the TI; vehicles that Entered the link during the TI.

The percentage, expressed as a fraction, of the total flow on the link that P

executes a particular turn movement, x.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station C7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

The number of queued vehicles on the link, of a particular turn movement, at the Q ,Q

[beginning, end] of the time interval.

The maximum flow rate that can be serviced by a link for a particular movement Q in the absence of a control device. It is specified by the analyst as an estimate of link capacity, based upon a field survey, with reference to the HCM.

R The factor that is applied to the capacity of a link to represent the capacity drop when the flow condition moves into the forced flow regime. The lower capacity at that point is equal to RQ .

RCap The remaining capacity available to service vehicles of a particular movement after that queue has been completely serviced, within a time interval, expressed as vehicles.

S Service rate for movement x, vehicles per hour (vph).

t Vehicles of a particular turn movement that enter a link over the first t seconds of a time interval, can reach the stopbar (in the absence of a queue down stream) within the same time interval.

TI The time interval, in seconds, which is used as the simulation time step.

v The mean speed of travel, in feet per second (fps) or miles per hour (mph), of moving vehicles on the link.

v The mean speed of the last vehicle in a queue that discharges from the link within the TI. This speed differs from the mean speed of moving vehicles, v.

W The width of the intersection in feet. This is the difference between the link length which extends from stopbar to stopbar and the block length.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station C8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

The formulation and the associated logic presented below are designed to solve the unit problem for each sweep over the network (discussed below), for each turn movement serviced on each link that comprises the evacuation network, and for each TI over the duration of the evacuation.

Given Q , M , L , TI , E , LN , G C , h , L , R , L , E , M Compute O , Q , M Define O O O O ; E E E

1. For the first sweep, s = 1, of this TI, get initial estimates of mean density, k , the R - factor, R and entering traffic, E , using the values computed for the final sweep of the prior TI.

For each subsequent sweep, s 1 , calculate E P O S where P , O are the relevant turn percentages from feeder link, i , and its total outflow (possibly metered) over this TI; S is the total source flow (possibly metered) during the current TI.

Set iteration counter, n = 0, k k , and E E .

2. Calculate v k such that k 130 using the analytical representations of the fundamental diagram.

Q TI G Calculate Cap 3600 C LN , in vehicles, this value may be reduced due to metering Set R 1.0 if G C 1 or if k k ; Set R 0.9 only if G C 1 and k k L

Calculate queue length, L Q LN

3. Calculate t TI . If t 0 , set t E O 0 ; Else, E E .

4. Then E E E ; t TI t

5. If Q Cap , then O Cap , O O 0 If t 0 , then Q Q M E Cap Else Q Q Cap End if Calculate Q and M using Algorithm A below

6. Else Q Cap O Q , RCap Cap O

7. If M RCap , then Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station C9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

t Cap

8. If t 0, O M ,O min RCap M , 0 TI Q E O If Q 0 , then Calculate Q , M with Algorithm A Else Q 0, M E End if Else t 0 O M and O 0 M M O E; Q 0 End if

9. Else M O 0 If t 0 , then O RCap , Q M O E Calculate Q and M using Algorithm A

10. Else t 0 M M If M ,

O RCap Q M O Apply Algorithm A to calculate Q and M Else O M M M O E and Q 0 End if End if End if End if

11. Calculate a new estimate of average density, k k 2k k ,

where k = density at the beginning of the TI k = density at the end of the TI k = density at the midpoint of the TI All values of density apply only to the moving vehicles.

If k k and n N where N max number of iterations, and is a convergence criterion, then Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station C10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

12. set n n 1 , and return to step 2 to perform iteration, n, using k k .

End if Computation of unit problem is now complete. Check for excessive inflow causing spillback.

13. If Q M , then The number of excess vehicles that cause spillback is: SB Q M ,

where W is the width of the upstream intersection. To prevent spillback, meter the outflow from the feeder approaches and from the source flow, S, during this TI by the amount, SB. That is, set SB M 1 0 , where M is the metering factor over all movements .

E S This metering factor is assigned appropriately to all feeder links and to the source flow, to be applied during the next network sweep, discussed later.

Algorithm A This analysis addresses the flow environment over a TI during which moving vehicles can join a standing or discharging queue. For the case Qb vQ shown, Q Cap, with t 0 and a queue of Qe Qe length, Q , formed by that portion of M and E that reaches the stopbar within the TI, but could v not discharge due to inadequate capacity. That is, Mb Q M E . This queue length, v Q Q M E Cap can be extended to Q L3 by traffic entering the approach during the current TI, traveling at speed, v, and reaching the rear of the t1 t3 queue within the TI. A portion of the entering TI vehicles, E E , will likely join the queue. This analysis calculates t , Q and M for the input values of L, TI, v, E, t, L , LN, Q .

When t 0 and Q Cap:

L L Define: L Q . From the sketch, L v TI t t L Q E .

LN LN Substituting E E yields: vt E L v TI t L . Recognizing that the first two terms on the right hand side cancel, solve for t to obtain:

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station C11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

L t such that 0 t TI t E L v

TI LN If the denominator, v 0, set t TI t .

t t t Then, Q Q E , M E 1 TI TI The complete Algorithm A considers all flow scenarios; space limitation precludes its inclusion, here.

C.1.3 Lane Assignment The unit problem is solved for each turn movement on each link. Therefore it is necessary to calculate a value, LN , of allocated lanes for each movement, x. If in fact all lanes are specified by, say, arrows painted on the pavement, either as full lanes or as lanes within a turn bay, then the problem is fully defined. If however there remain unchannelized lanes on a link, then an analysis is undertaken to subdivide the number of these physical lanes into turn movement specific virtual lanes, LNx.

C.2 Implementation C.2.1 Computational Procedure The computational procedure for this model is shown in the form of a flow diagram as Figure C4. As discussed earlier, the simulation model processes traffic flow for each link independently over TI that the analyst specifies; it is usually 60 seconds or longer. The first step is to execute an algorithm to define the sequence in which the network links are processed so that as many links as possible are processed after their feeder links are processed, within the same network sweep. Since a general network will have many closed loops, it is not possible to guarantee that every link processed will have all of its feeder links processed earlier.

The processing then continues as a succession of time steps of duration, TI, until the simulation is completed. Within each time step, the processing performs a series of sweeps over all network links; this is necessary to ensure that the traffic flow is synchronous over the entire network. Specifically, the sweep ensures continuity of flow among all the network links; in the context of this model, this means that the values of E, M, and S are all defined for each link such that they represent the synchronous movement of traffic from each link to all of its outbound links. These sweeps also serve to compute the metering rates that control spillback.

Within each sweep, processing solves the unit problem for each turn movement on each link.

With the turn movement percentages for each link provided by the DTRAD model, an algorithm Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station C12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

allocates the number of lanes to each movement serviced on each link. The timing at a signal, if any, applied at the downstream end of the link, is expressed as a G/C ratio, the signal timing needed to define this ratio is an input requirement for the model. The model also has the capability of representing, with macroscopic fidelity, the actions of actuated signals responding to the timevarying competing demands on the approaches to the intersection.

The solution of the unit problem yields the values of the number of vehicles, O, that discharge from the link over the time interval and the number of vehicles that remain on the link at the end of the time interval as stratified by queued and moving vehicles: Q and M . The procedure considers each movement separately (multipiping). After all network links are processed for a given network sweep, the updated consistent values of entering flows, E; metering rates, M; and source flows, S are defined so as to satisfy the no spillback condition.

The procedure then performs the unit problem solutions for all network links during the following sweep.

Experience has shown that the system converges (i.e. the values of E, M and S settle down for all network links) in just two sweeps if the network is entirely undersaturated or in four sweeps in the presence of extensive congestion with link spillback. (The initial sweep over each link uses the final values of E and M, of the prior TI). At the completion of the final sweep for a TI, the procedure computes and stores all measures of effectiveness for each link and turn movement for output purposes. It then prepares for the following time interval by defining the values of Q and M for the start of the next TI as being those values of Q and M at the end of the prior TI. In this manner, the simulation model processes the traffic flow over time until the end of the run. Note that there is no spacediscretization other than the specification of network links.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station C13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Sequence Network Links Next Timestep, of duration, TI A

Next sweep; Define E, M, S for all B

Links C Next Link D Next Turn Movement, x Get lanes, LNx Service Rate, Sx ; G/Cx Get inputs to Unit Problem:

Q b , Mb , E Solve Unit Problem: Q e , Me , O No D Last Movement ?

Yes No Last Link ? C Yes No B Last Sweep ?

Yes Calc., store all Link MOE Set up next TI :

No A Last Time - step ?

Yes DONE Figure C4. Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C3)

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station C14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

C.2.2 Interfacing with Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTRAD)

The DYNEV II system reflects NRC guidance that evacuees will seek to travel in a general direction away from the location of the hazardous event. Thus, an algorithm was developed to identify an appropriate set of destination nodes for each origin based on its location and on the expected direction of travel. This algorithm also supports the DTRAD model in dynamically varying the Trip Table (OD matrix) over time from one DTRAD session to the next.

Figure B1 depicts the interaction of the simulation model with the DTRAD model in the DYNEV II system. As indicated, DYNEV II performs a succession of DTRAD sessions; each such session computes the turn link percentages for each link that remain constant for the session duration, T , T , specified by the analyst. The end product is the assignment of traffic volumes from each origin to paths connecting it with its destinations in such a way as to minimize the networkwide cost function. The output of the DTRAD model is a set of updated link turn percentages which represent this assignment of traffic.

As indicated in Figure B1, the simulation model supports the DTRAD session by providing it with operational link MOE that are needed by the path choice model and included in the DTRAD cost function. These MOE represent the operational state of the network at a time, T T , which lies within the session duration, T , T . This burn time, T T , is selected by the analyst. For each DTRAD iteration, the simulation model computes the change in network operations over this burn time using the latest set of link turn percentages computed by the DTRAD model. Upon convergence of the DTRAD iterative procedure, the simulation model accepts the latest turn percentages provided by the DTA model, returns to the origin time, T , and executes until it arrives at the end of the DTRAD session duration at time, T . At this time the next DTA session is launched and the whole process repeats until the end of the DYNEV II run.

Additional details are presented in Appendix B.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station C15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX D Detailed Description of Study Procedure

D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE This appendix describes the activities that were performed to compute Evacuation Time Estimates. The individual steps of this effort are represented as a flow diagram in Figure D1.

Each numbered step in the description that follows corresponds to the numbered element in the flow diagram.

Step 1 The first activity was to obtain EPZ boundary information and create a GIS base map. The base map extends beyond the Shadow Region which extends approximately 15 miles (radially) from the power plant location. The base map incorporates the local roadway topology, a suitable topographic background and the EPZ boundary.

Step 2 2010 Census block information was obtained in GIS format. This information was used to estimate the resident population within the EPZ and Shadow Region and to define the spatial distribution and demographic characteristics of the population within the study area. Employee data were estimated using data provided my local emergency management agencies and from phone calls to major employers. Transient data were obtained from local/state emergency management agencies and from phone calls to transient attractions. Information concerning schools, medical and other types of special facilities within the EPZ was obtained from county and municipal sources.

Step 3 A kickoff meeting was conducted with major stakeholders (state and local emergency managers, onsite and offsite utility emergency managers, and law enforcement agencies). The purpose of the kickoff meeting was to present an overview of the work effort, identify key agency personnel, and indicate the data requirements for the study. Specific requests for information were presented to local emergency managers. Unique features of the study area were discussed to identify the local concerns that should be addressed by the ETE study.

Step 4 Next, a physical survey of the roadway system in the study area was conducted to determine the geometric properties of the highway sections, the channelization of lanes on each section of roadway, whether there are any turn restrictions or special treatment of traffic at intersections, the type and functioning of traffic control devices, gathering signal timings for pretimed traffic signals, and to make the necessary observations needed to estimate realistic values of roadway capacity.

Step 5 A telephone survey of households within the EPZ was conducted to identify household dynamics, trip generation characteristics, and evacuationrelated demographic information of the EPZ population. This information was used to determine important study factors including the average number of evacuating vehicles used by each household, and the time required to Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station D1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

perform preevacuation mobilization activities.

Step 6 A computerized representation of the physical roadway system, called a linknode analysis network, was developed using the UNITES software developed by KLD. Once the geometry of the network was completed, the network was calibrated using the information gathered during the road survey (Step 4). Estimates of highway capacity for each link and other linkspecific characteristics were introduced to the network description. Traffic signal timings were input accordingly. The linknode analysis network was imported into a GIS map. 2010 Census data were overlaid in the map, and origin centroids where trips would be generated during the evacuation process were assigned to appropriate links.

Step 7 The EPZ is subdivided into 10 Sub Areas. Based on wind direction and speed, Regions (groupings of Sub Areas) that may be advised to evacuate, were developed.

The need for evacuation can occur over a range of timeofday, dayofweek, seasonal and weatherrelated conditions. Scenarios were developed to capture the variation in evacuation demand, highway capacity and mobilization time, for different time of day, day of the week, time of year, and weather conditions.

Step 8 The input stream for the DYNEV II model, which integrates the dynamic traffic assignment and distribution model, DTRAD, with the evacuation simulation model, was created for a prototype evacuation case - the evacuation of the entire EPZ for a representative scenario.

Step 9 After creating this input stream, the DYNEV II System was executed on the prototype evacuation case to compute evacuating traffic routing patterns consistent with the appropriate NRC guidelines. DYNEV II contains an extensive suite of data diagnostics which check the completeness and consistency of the input data specified. The analyst reviews all warning and error messages produced by the model and then corrects the database to create an input stream that properly executes to completion.

The model assigns destinations to all origin centroids consistent with a (general) radial evacuation of the EPZ and Shadow Region. The analyst may optionally supplement and/or replace these modelassigned destinations, based on professional judgment, after studying the topology of the analysis highway network. The model produces link and networkwide measures of effectiveness as well as estimates of evacuation time.

Step 10 The results generated by the prototype evacuation case are critically examined. The examination includes observing the animated graphics (using the EVAN software which operates on data produced by DYNEV II) and reviewing the statistics output by the model. This is a laborintensive activity, requiring the direct participation of skilled engineers who possess Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station D2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

the necessary practical experience to interpret the results and to determine the causes of any problems reflected in the results.

Essentially, the approach is to identify those bottlenecks in the network that represent locations where congested conditions are pronounced and to identify the cause of this congestion. This cause can take many forms, either as excess demand due to high rates of trip generation, improper routing, a shortfall of capacity, or as a quantitative flaw in the way the physical system was represented in the input stream. This examination leads to one of two conclusions:

The results are satisfactory; or The input stream must be modified accordingly.

This decision requires, of course, the application of the user's judgment and experience based upon the results obtained in previous applications of the model and a comparison of the results of the latest prototype evacuation case iteration with the previous ones. If the results are satisfactory in the opinion of the user, then the process continues with Step 13. Otherwise, proceed to Step 11.

Step 11 There are many "treatments" available to the user in resolving apparent problems. These treatments range from decisions to reroute the traffic by assigning additional evacuation destinations for one or more sources, imposing turn restrictions where they can produce significant improvements in capacity, changing the control treatment at critical intersections so as to provide improved service for one or more movements, or in prescribing specific treatments for channelizing the flow so as to expedite the movement of traffic along major roadway systems. Such "treatments" take the form of modifications to the original prototype evacuation case input stream. All treatments are designed to improve the representation of evacuation behavior.

Step 12 As noted above, the changes to the input stream must be implemented to reflect the modifications undertaken in Step 11. At the completion of this activity, the process returns to Step 9 where the DYNEV II System is again executed.

Step 13 Evacuation of transitdependent evacuees and special facilities are included in the evacuation analysis. Fixed routing for transit buses and for school buses, ambulances, and other transit vehicles are introduced into the final prototype evacuation case data set. DYNEV II generates routespecific speeds over time for use in the estimation of evacuation times for the transit dependent and special facility population groups.

Step 14 The prototype evacuation case was used as the basis for generating all region and scenario specific evacuation cases to be simulated. This process was automated through the UNITES user interface. For each specific case, the population to be evacuated, the trip generation Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station D3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

distributions, the highway capacity and speeds, and other factors are adjusted to produce a customized casespecific data set.

Step 15 All evacuation cases are executed using the DYNEV II System to compute ETE. Once results were available, quality control procedures were used to assure the results were consistent, dynamic routing was reasonable, and traffic congestion/bottlenecks were addressed properly.

Step 16 Once vehicular evacuation results are accepted, average travel speeds for transit and special facility routes were used to compute evacuation time estimates for transitdependent permanent residents, schools, hospitals, and other special facilities.

Step 17 The simulation results are analyzed, tabulated and graphed. The results were then documented, as required by NUREG/CR7002.

Step 18 Following the completion of documentation activities, the ETE criteria checklist (see Appendix N) was completed. An appropriate report reference is provided for each criterion provided in the checklist.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station D4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

A Step 1 Step 10 Create GIS Base Map Examine Results of Prototype Evacuation Case using EVAN and DYNEV II Output Step 2 Gather Census Block and Demographic Data for Results Satisfactory Study Area Step 11 Step 3 Modify Evacuation Destinations and/or Develop Conduct Kickoff Meeting with Stakeholders Traffic Control Treatments Step 4 Step 12 Field Survey of Roadways within Study Area Modify Database to Reflect Changes to Prototype Evacuation Case Step 5 Conduct Telephone Survey and Develop Trip Generation Characteristics B

Step 13 Step 6 Establish Transit and Special Facility Evacuation Create and Calibrate LinkNode Analysis Network Routes and Update DYNEV II Database Step 14 Step 7 Generate DYNEV II Input Streams for All Evacuation Cases Develop Evacuation Regions and Scenarios Step 15 Step 8 Execute DYNEV II to Compute ETE for All Create and Debug DYNEV II Input Stream Evacuation Cases Step 16 Step 9 Use DYNEV II Average Speed Output to Compute ETE for Transit and Special Facility Routes B Execute DYNEV II for Prototype Evacuation Case Step 17 Documentation A Step 18 Complete ETE Criteria Checklist Figure D1. Flow Diagram of Activities Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station D5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX E Special Facility Data

E. SPECIAL FACILITY DATA The following tables list population information, as of March 2012, for special facilities, transient attractions and major employers that are located within the FCNS EPZ. Special facilities are defined as schools, hospitals and other medical care facilities, and correctional facilities. Transient population data is included in the tables for recreational areas and lodging facilities. Employment data is included in the tables for major employers. Each table is grouped by county. The location of the facility is defined by its straightline distance (miles) and direction (magnetic bearing) from the center point of the plant. Maps of each school, recreational area, lodging facility, and major employer are also provided.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station E1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table E1. Schools within the EPZ Sub Distance Dire Area (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality Phone Enrollment Staff Harrison County, IA 13 10.6 ENE Missouri Valley Elementary School 602 N 9th St Missouri Valley (712) 6422279 414 36 13 10.7 ENE Missouri Valley High School 605 E Lincoln Hwy Missouri Valley (712) 6422707 323 28 13 10.2 ENE Missouri Valley Middle School 607 Lincoln Hwy Missouri Valley (712) 6422707 197 26 Harrison County, IA Subtotals: 934 90 Washington County, NE 2 3.8 WNW Blair Arbor Park Middle School 1717 Adams St Blair (402) 4262735 385 51 2 3.1 NW Blair High School 440 N 10th St Blair (402) 4264941 684 79 2 4.3 WNW Deerfield Elementary School 1100 Deerfield Blvd Blair (402) 4265123 295 45 2 2.9 NW Gerald Otte Blair Middle School 555 Jackson St Blair (402) 4263678 554 60 2 3.4 NW North Elementary School 1326 Park St Blair (402) 4263835 198 20 2 3.2 WNW South Elementary School 1616 Butler St Blair (402) 4262229 131 17 2 3.8 WNW West Elementary School 2232 Washington St Blair (402) 4263135 73 8 3 5.3 SE Fort Calhoun Elementary School 1101 Monroe St Fort Calhoun (402) 4685714 285 35 3 4.7 SE Fort Calhoun Jr.Sr. High School 1506 Lincoln St Fort Calhoun (402) 4685591 250 50 Washington County, NE Subtotals: 2,855 365 TOTAL: 3,789 455 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station E2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table E2. Medical Facilities within the EPZ Ambul Wheel Bed Sub Distance Dire Cap Current atory chair ridden Area (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone acity Census Patients Patients Patients Harrison County, IA Alegent Health Community Missouri 13 10.5 ENE Memorial Hospital 631 N 8th St Valley (712) 6422784 25 4 2 2 0 Missouri 13 10.2 ENE Culivan Heights 505 E Huron St Valley (712) 6422458 52 52 52 0 0 Missouri 13 10.2 ENE Kovar Court 101 N 6th St Valley (712) 6429411 24 24 15 9 0 Missouri 13 10.6 ENE Longview Home 1010 Longview Rd Valley (712) 6422264 130 130 65 65 0 Harrison County, IA Subtotals: 231 210 134 76 0 Washington County, NE 2 3.5 NW Carter House 1028 Joann Dr Blair (402) 4261977 36 15 13 2 0 2 3.8 WNW Crowell Memorial Home 245 S 22nd St Blair (402) 4262177 112 112 57 55 0 Good Shepherd Lutheran 2 4.1 WNW Home 2242 Wright St Blair (402) 4263377 96 76 38 38 0 Memorial Community 2 4.1 WNW Hospital 810 N 22nd St Blair (402) 4262182 21 1 0 1 0 Autumn Pointe Assisted Fort 3 5.0 SE Living Community 501 N 13th St Calhoun (402) 4684700 40 32 32 0 0 Washington County, NE Subtotals: 305 236 140 96 0 TOTAL: 536 446 274 172 0 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station E3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table E3. Major Employers within the EPZ Sub Distance Dire Employees Non Employees Area (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone (max shift) EPZ (Non EPZ)

Harrison County, IA 13 9.6 ENE Vulcan Industries 212 Kirlin St Missouri Valley (712) 6422755 52 50% 26 Harrison County, IA Subtotals: 52 26 Washington County, NE 1 1.8 NW Cargill Corn Milling, North America 650 Industrial Park Dr Blair (402) 5334100 395 70% 277 1 0.1 N/A Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant Power Ln Blair (402) 5364131 690 80% 552 1 2.2 NW MidAmerica Computer Corporation 111 Admiral Dr Blair (402) 4266222 170 60% 102 1 1.8 NW Nature Works 650 Industrial Park Dr Blair (402) 4263077 62 50% 31 1 2.1 WNW Novozymes 600 S 1st St Blair (402) 4263077 90 80% 72 1 1.8 NW Purac America 650 Industrial Park Dr Blair (402) 5331800 84 55% 46 2 3.4 WNW American Broadband Nebraska 1605 Washington St Blair (402) 4266200 80 50% 40 2 3.2 W Cargill Corn Milling, North America 1705 Kellie Dr Blair (402) 5334390 85 50% 43 2 3.4 WNW City of Blair City Hall 218 S 16th St Blair (402) 4264191 55 10% 6 2 3.3 WNW Concrete Equipment Co 237 N 13th St Blair (402) 4264181 135 50% 68 2 3.4 WNW Enterprise Publishing 138 N 16th St Blair (402) 4262121 50 20% 10 2 3.3 WNW Great Plains Communications 1600 Grant St Blair (402) 4269511 116 20% 23 2 2.4 NW McKinnis Roofing & Sheet Metal 672 Front St Blair (402) 4262644 75 20% 15 2 3.3 W Mutual of Omaha 9330 State Hwy 133 Blair (402) 3518088 166 60% 100 2 3.4 W Sid Dillon Chevrolet Blair 2261 US 30 Blair (402) 4264121 61 60% 37 2 3.3 W Walmart 1882 Holly St Blair (402) 5338227 73 35% 26 2 3.3 WNW Washington County 1555 Colfax St Blair (402) 4266833 100 80% 80 2 3.3 WNW Washington County Bank 1523 Washington St Blair (402) 4262111 55 10% 6 2 3.4 W Woodhouse Ford 2171 US 30 Blair (402) 4264127 349 50% 175 3 5.4 SE B&W Fine Pack 1113 Madison St Fort Calhoun (402) 4685511 150 70% 105 Washington County, NE Subtotals: 3041 1814 TOTAL: 3093 1840 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station E4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table E4. Parks/Recreational Attractions within the EPZ Sub Distance Dire Area (miles) ction Facility Name Facility Type Street Address Municipality Phone Transients Vehicles Harrison County, IA DeSoto National 10 3.4 NE Wildlife Refuge Parks 1434 316th Ln Missouri Valley (712) 3884802 900 315 Harrison County, IA Subtotals: 900 315 Pottawattamie County, IA Wilson Island 14 4.2 ESE Recreation Area Parks 32801 Camp Ground Ln Missouri Valley (712) 6422069 129 45 Pottawattamie County, IA Subtotals: 129 45 Washington County, NE 2 6 NW River Wilds Golf Club Golf Hwy 75 N Blair (402) 4262941 70 40 Fort Atkinson State 3 6 SE Historical Park Historical Site 201 South 7th St Fort Calhoun (402) 4685611 270 45 Washington County, NE Subtotals: 340 85 TOTAL: 1,369 445 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station E5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table E5. Lodging Facilities and Campgrounds within the EPZ Sub Distance Dire Area (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone Transients Vehicles Harrison County, IA 13 8 ENE Days Inn Missouri Valley 1967 Hwy 30 Missouri Valley (712) 6424003 88 50 13 9 ENE Oak Tree Inn 128 Willow Rd Missouri Valley (712) 6423000 61 31 13 8 ENE Rath Inn 3155 Joliet Ave Missouri Valley (712) 6422723 94 53 13 8 E Super 8 Missouri Valley 3167 Joliet Ave Missouri Valley (712) 6424788 202 115 Harrison County, IA Subtotals: 445 249 Pottawattamie County, IA 14 4 ESE Wilson Island Recreation Area 32801 Camp Ground Ln Missouri Valley (712) 6422069 270 189 Pottawattamie County, IA Subtotals: 270 189 Washington County, NE 2 3 WNW Clifton Inn 1465 Front St Blair (402) 4262650 33 17 2 6 NNW Driftwood Inn 10740 Serenity Ln Blair (402) 4265211 10 6 2 3 WNW Econo Lodge 1355 Hwy 30 Blair (402) 4262340 62 36 2 4 W Motel California 2829 S Hwy 30 Blair (402) 4264801 24 10 2 3 NW Starlite Motel 648 River Rd Blair (402) 4264874 16 16 2 3 WNW Super 8 Blair 558 S 13th St Blair (402) 4268888 44 29 Washington County, NE Subtotals: 189 114 TOTAL: 904 552 Table E6. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ Distance Dire Cap Sub Area (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone acity Washington County, NE 2 3.3 WNW Washington County Jail 1535 Colfax St Blair (402) 4266863 32 TOTAL: 32 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station E6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure E1. Schools within the EPZ Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station E7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure E2. Medical Facilities within the EPZ Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station E8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure E3. Major Employers within the EPZ Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station E9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure E4. Recreational Areas within the EPZ Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station E10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure E5. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station E11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure E6. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station E12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX F Telephone Survey

F. TELEPHONE SURVEY F.1 Introduction The development of evacuation time estimates for the FCNS EPZ requires the identification of travel patterns, car ownership and household size of the population within the EPZ.

Demographic information can be obtained from Census data. The use of this data has several limitations when applied to emergency planning. First, the Census data do not encompass the range of information needed to identify the time required for preliminary activities (mobilization) that must be undertaken prior to evacuating the area. Secondly, Census data do not contain attitudinal responses needed from the population of the EPZ and consequently may not accurately represent the anticipated behavioral characteristics of the evacuating populace.

These concerns are addressed by conducting a telephone survey of a representative sample of the EPZ population. The survey is designed to elicit information from the public concerning family demographics and estimates of response times to well defined events. The design of the survey includes a limited number of questions of the form What would you do if ? and other questions regarding activities with which the respondent is familiar (How long does it take you to ?)

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station F1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

F.2 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan Attachment A presents the final survey instrument used in this study. A draft of the instrument was submitted to stakeholders for comment. Comments were received and the survey instrument was modified accordingly, prior to conducting the survey.

Following the completion of the instrument, a sampling plan was developed. A sample size of approximately 500 completed survey forms yields results with a sampling error of +/-4.5% at the 95% confidence level. The sample must be drawn from the EPZ population. Consequently, a list of zip codes in the EPZ was developed using GIS software. This list is shown in Table F1. Along with each zip code, an estimate of the population and number of households in each area was determined by overlaying Census data and the EPZ boundary, again using GIS software. The proportional number of desired completed survey interviews for each area was identified, as shown in Table F1. Note that the average household size computed in Table F1 was an estimate for sampling purposes and was not used in the ETE study.

The completed survey adhered to the sampling plan.

Table F1. FCNS Telephone Survey Sampling Plan Population within Required Zip Code EPZ (2010) Households Sample 51526 56 25 2 51555 2,102 884 59 51556 408 165 11 68007 204 78 5 68008 12,037 4,563 307 68023 2,810 1,103 74 68029 7 2 0 68034 729 279 19 68112 101 40 3 68122 328 126 8 68142 174 71 5 68152 256 97 7 Total 19,212 7,433 500 Average Household Size: 2.58 Total Sample Required: 500 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station F2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

F.3 Survey Results The results of the survey fall into two categories. First, the household demographics of the area can be identified. Demographic information includes such factors as household size, automobile ownership, and automobile availability. The distributions of the time to perform certain pre evacuation activities are the second category of survey results. These data are processed to develop the trip generation distributions used in the evacuation modeling effort, as discussed in Section 5.

A review of the survey instrument reveals that several questions have a dont know (DK) or refused entry for a response. It is accepted practice in conducting surveys of this type to accept the answers of a respondent who offers a DK response for a few questions or who refuses to answer a few questions. To address the issue of occasional DK/refused responses from a large sample, the practice is to assume that the distribution of these responses is the same as the underlying distribution of the positive responses. In effect, the DK/refused responses are ignored and the distributions are based upon the positive data that is acquired.

F.3.1 Household Demographic Results Household Size Figure F1 presents the distribution of household size within the EPZ. The average household contains 2.61 people. The estimated household size (2.58 persons) used to determine the survey sample (Table F1) was drawn from Census data. The close agreement between the average household size obtained from the survey and from the Census is an indication of the reliability of the survey.

Fort Calhoun Household Size 60%

50%

% of Households 40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+

Household Size Figure F1. Household Size in the EPZ Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station F3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Automobile Ownership The average number of automobiles available per household in the EPZ is 2.38. It should be noted that 1.4 percent of households do not have access to an automobile. The distribution of automobile ownership is presented in Figure F2. Figure F3 and Figure F4 present the automobile availability by household size. Note that the majority of households without access to a car are single person households. As expected, nearly all households of 2 or more people have access to at least one vehicle.

Fort Calhoun Vehicle Availability 50%

40%

% of Households 30%

20%

10%

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+

Number of Vehicles Figure F2. Household Vehicle Availability Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station F4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 15 Person Households 1 Person 2 People 3 People 4 People 5 People 100%

80%

% of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+

Vehicles Figure F3. Vehicle Availability 1 to 5 Person Households Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 69+ Person Households 6 People 7 People 8 People 9+ People 100%

80%

% of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+

Vehicles Figure F4. Vehicle Availability 6 to 9+ Person Households Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station F5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Ridesharing 100% of the households surveyed who do not own a vehicle responded that they would share a ride with a neighbor, relative, or friend if a car was not available to them when advised to evacuate in the event of an emergency. Note, however, that only those households with no access to a vehicle - 7 total out of the sample size of 500 - answered this question. Thus, the results are not statistically significant. As such, the NRC recommendation of 50% ridesharing is used throughout this study. Figure F5 presents this response.

Fort Calhoun Rideshare with Neighbor/Friend 100%

80%

% of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

Yes No Figure F5. Household Ridesharing Preference Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station F6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Commuters Figure F6 presents the distribution of the number of commuters in each household.

Commuters are defined as household members who travel to work or college on a daily basis.

The data shows an average of 1.14 commuters in each household in the EPZ, and 65% of households have at least one commuter.

Fort Calhoun Commuters 50%

40%

% of Households 30%

20%

10%

0%

0 1 2 3 4+

Number of Commuters Figure F6. Commuters in Households in the EPZ Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station F7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Commuter Travel Modes Figure F7 presents the mode of travel that commuters use on a daily basis. The vast majority of commuters use their private automobiles to travel to work. The data shows an average of 1.07 employees per vehicle, assuming 2 people per vehicle - on average - for carpools.

Fort Calhoun Travel Mode to Work 100% 93.1%

80%

% of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

6.5%

0.2% 0.2% 0.0%

0%

Rail Bus Walk/Bike Drive Alone Carpool (2+)

Mode of Travel Figure F7. Modes of Travel in the EPZ F.3.2 Evacuation Response Several questions were asked to gauge the populations response to an emergency. These are now discussed:

How many of the vehicles would your household use during an evacuation? The response is shown in Figure F8. On average, evacuating households would use 1.40 vehicles.

Would your family await the return of other family members prior to evacuating the area?

Of the survey participants who responded, 42 percent said they would await the return of other family members before evacuating and 58 percent indicated that they would not await the return of other family members.

If you had a household pet, would you take your pet with you if you were asked to evacuate the area? Based on the responses to the survey, 73 percent of households have a family pet.

Of the households with pets, 82 percent of them indicated that they would take their pets with them, as shown in Figure F9.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station F8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Vehicles Used for Evacuation 100%

80%

60%

% of Households 40%

20%

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+

Number of Vehicles Figure F8. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation Households Evacuating with Pets 100%

80%

% of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

Yes No Figure F9. Households Evacuating with Pets Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station F9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Emergency officials advise you to take shelter at home in an emergency. Would you? This question is designed to elicit information regarding compliance with instructions to shelter in place. The results indicate that 90 percent of households who are advised to shelter in place would do so; the remaining 10 percent would choose to evacuate the area. Note the baseline ETE study assumes 20 percent of households will not comply with the shelter advisory, as per Section 2.5.2 of NUREG/CR7002. Thus, the data obtained above is significantly less than federal guidance recommendation. As indicated in Appendix M (Table M2), a sensitivity study was conducted to estimate the impact of shadow evacuation (noncompliance of shelter advisory) on ETE. The results indicate that the ETE are not impacted by a change in shadow evacuation from 20% to 10%.

Emergency officials advise you to take shelter at home now in an emergency and possibly evacuate later while people in other areas are advised to evacuate now. Would you? This question is designed to elicit information specifically related to the possibility of a staged evacuation. That is, asking a population to shelter in place now and then to evacuate after a specified period of time. Results indicate that 68 percent of households would follow instructions and delay the start of evacuation until so advised, while the balance of 32 percent would choose to begin evacuating immediately.

F.3.3 Time Distribution Results The survey asked several questions about the amount of time it takes to perform certain pre evacuation activities. These activities involve actions taken by residents during the course of their daytoday lives. Thus, the answers fall within the realm of the responders experience.

The mobilization distributions provided below are the result of having applied the analysis described in Section 5.4.1 on the component activities of the mobilization.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station F10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

How long does it take the commuter to complete preparation for leaving work? Figure F10 presents the cumulative distribution; in all cases, the activity is completed by about 60 minutes.

Eightyfour percent can leave within 20 minutes.

Time to Prepare to Leave Work 100%

80%

% of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Preparation Time (min)

Figure F10. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/School How long would it take the commuter to travel home? Figure F11 presents the work to home travel time for the EPZ. 85 percent of commuters can arrive home within 35 minutes of leaving work; all within 75 minutes.

Work to Home Travel 100%

80%

% of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Travel Time (min)

Figure F11. Work to Home Travel Time Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station F11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

How long would it take the family to pack clothing, secure the house, and load the car?

Figure F12 presents the time required to prepare for leaving on an evacuation trip. In many ways this activity mimics a familys preparation for a short holiday or weekend away from home. Hence, the responses represent the experience of the responder in performing similar activities.

The distribution shown in Figure F12 has a long tail. About 86 percent of households can be ready to leave home within 60 minutes; the remaining households require up to an additional two hours and fifteen minutes.

Time to Prepare to Leave Home 100%

80%

% of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 Preparation Time (min)

Figure F12. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station F12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

How long would it take you to clear 6 to 8 inches of snow from your driveway? During adverse, snowy weather conditions, an additional activity must be performed before residents can depart on the evacuation trip. Although snow scenarios assume that the roads and highways have been plowed and are passable (albeit at lower speeds and capacities), it may be necessary to clear a private driveway prior to leaving the home so that the vehicle can access the street. Figure F13 presents the time distribution for removing 6 to 8 inches of snow from a driveway. The time distribution for clearing the driveway has a long tail; about 85 percent of driveways are passable within 45 minutes. The last driveway is cleared three hours after the start of this activity. Note that those respondents (43.3%) who answered that they would not take time to clear their driveway were assumed to be ready immediately at the start of this activity. Essentially they would drive through the snow on the driveway to access the roadway and begin their evacuation trip.

Time to Remove Snow from Driveway 100%

80%

% of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 Travel Time (min)

Figure F13. Time to Clear Driveway of 6"8" of Snow F.4 Conclusions The telephone survey provides valuable, relevant data associated with the EPZ population, which have been used to quantify demographics specific to the EPZ, and mobilization time which can influence evacuation time estimates.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station F13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

ATTACHMENT A Telephone Survey Instrument Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station F14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Telephone Survey Instrument Hello, my name is ___________ and Im working for First Market COL. 1 Unused Research on a survey for local emergency management agencies to COL. 2 Unused identify local behavior during emergency situations. This COL. 3 Unused information will be used for emergency planning and will be shared COL. 4 Unused with local officials to enhance emergency response plans in your area for all hazards; emergency planning for some hazards may COL. 5 Unused require evacuation. Your responses will greatly contribute to local Sex COL. 8 emergency preparedness. I will not ask for your name and the 1 Male survey shall take no more than 10 minutes to complete. 2 Female INTERVIEWER: ASK TO SPEAK TO THE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD OR THE SPOUSE OF THE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD.

(Terminate call if not a residence.)

DO NOT ASK:

1A. Record area code. To Be Determined COL. 911 1B. Record exchange number. To Be Determined COL. 1214

2. What is your home zip code? COL. 1519 3A. In total, how many running cars, or other running COL. 20 SKIP TO vehicles are usually available to the household? 1 ONE Q. 4 (DO NOT READ ANSWERS) 2 TWO Q. 4 3 THREE Q. 4 4 FOUR Q. 4 5 FIVE Q. 4 6 SIX Q. 4 7 SEVEN Q. 4 8 EIGHT Q. 4 9 NINE OR MORE Q. 4 0 ZERO (NONE) Q. 3B X DONT KNOW/REFUSED Q. 3B 3B. In an emergency, could you get a ride out of the COL. 21 area with a neighbor or friend? 1 YES 2 NO X DONT KNOW/REFUSED

4. How many people usually live in this household? COL. 22 COL. 23 (DO NOT READ ANSWERS) 1 ONE 0 TEN 2 TWO 1 ELEVEN 3 THREE 2 TWELVE 4 FOUR 3 THIRTEEN 5 FIVE 4 FOURTEEN 6 SIX 5 FIFTEEN Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station F15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

7 SEVEN 6 SIXTEEN 8 EIGHT 7 SEVENTEEN 9 NINE 8 EIGHTEEN 9 NINETEEN OR MORE X DONT KNOW/REFUSED

5. How many adults in the household commute to a COL. 24 SKIP TO job, or to college on a daily basis? 0 ZERO Q. 9 1 ONE Q. 6 2 TWO Q. 6 3 THREE Q. 6 4 FOUR OR MORE Q. 6 5 DONT KNOW/REFUSED Q. 9 INTERVIEWER: For each person identified in Question 5, ask Questions 6, 7, and 8.

6. Thinking about commuter #1, how does that person usually travel to work or college? (REPEAT QUESTION FOR EACH COMMUTER)

Commuter #1 Commuter #2 Commuter #3 Commuter #4 COL. 25 COL. 26 COL. 27 COL. 28 Rail 1 1 1 1 Bus 2 2 2 2 Walk/Bicycle 3 3 3 3 Drive Alone 4 4 4 4 Carpool2 or more people 5 5 5 5 Dont know/Refused 6 6 6 6

7. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #1 to travel home from work or college? (REPEAT QUESTION FOR EACH COMMUTER) (DO NOT READ ANSWERS)

COMMUTER #1 COMMUTER #2 COL. 29 COL. 30 COL. 31 COL. 32 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 4650 MINUTES 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 4650 MINUTES 2 610 MINUTES 2 5155 MINUTES 2 610 MINUTES 2 5155 MINUTES 3 1115 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR 3 1115 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 4 1620 MINUTES 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 4 1620 MINUTES 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR MINUTES 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 5 2125 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 5 2125 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 30 MINUTES HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 2630 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 6 2630 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 45 MINUTES HOUR 45 MINUTES Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station F16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 3135 MINUTES 7 MINUTES AND 2 7 3135 MINUTES 7 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS HOURS OVER 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS 8 3640 MINUTES 8 8 3640 MINUTES 8 (SPECIFY ______) (SPECIFY ______)

9 4145 MINUTES 9 9 4145 MINUTES 9 0 0 DONT KNOW DONT KNOW X X

/REFUSED /REFUSED COMMUTER #3 COMMUTER #4 COL. 33 COL. 34 COL. 35 COL. 36 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 4650 MINUTES 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 4650 MINUTES 2 610 MINUTES 2 5155 MINUTES 2 610 MINUTES 2 5155 MINUTES 3 1115 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR 3 1115 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 4 1620 MINUTES 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 4 1620 MINUTES 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR MINUTES 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 5 2125 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 5 2125 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 30 MINUTES HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 2630 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 6 2630 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 45 MINUTES HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 3135 MINUTES 7 MINUTES AND 2 7 3135 MINUTES 7 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS HOURS OVER 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS 8 3640 MINUTES 8 8 3640 MINUTES 8 (SPECIFY ______) (SPECIFY ______)

9 4145 MINUTES 9 9 4145 MINUTES 9 0 0 DONT KNOW DONT KNOW X X

/REFUSED /REFUSED Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station F17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

8. Approximately how much time does it take Commuter #1 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home? (REPEAT QUESTION FOR EACH COMMUTER) (DO NOT READ ANSWERS)

COMMUTER #1 COMMUTER #2 COL. 37 COL. 38 COL. 39 COL. 40 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 4650 MINUTES 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 4650 MINUTES 2 610 MINUTES 2 5155 MINUTES 2 610 MINUTES 2 5155 MINUTES 3 1115 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR 3 1115 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 4 1620 MINUTES 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 4 1620 MINUTES 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR MINUTES 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 5 2125 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 5 2125 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 30 MINUTES HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 2630 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 6 2630 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 45 MINUTES HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 3135 MINUTES 7 MINUTES AND 2 7 3135 MINUTES 7 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS HOURS OVER 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS 8 3640 MINUTES 8 8 3640 MINUTES 8 (SPECIFY ______) (SPECIFY ______)

9 4145 MINUTES 9 9 4145 MINUTES 9 0 0 X DONT KNOW /REFUSED X DONT KNOW /REFUSED COMMUTER #3 COMMUTER #4 COL. 41 COL. 42 COL. 43 COL. 44 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 4650 MINUTES 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 4650 MINUTES 2 610 MINUTES 2 5155 MINUTES 2 610 MINUTES 2 5155 MINUTES 3 1115 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR 3 1115 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS 4 1620 MINUTES 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 4 1620 MINUTES 4 THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 5 2125 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 5 2125 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 30 MINUTES MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 2630 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 6 2630 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 45 MINUTES MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 3135 MINUTES 7 MINUTES AND 2 7 3135 MINUTES 7 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS HOURS OVER 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY 8 3640 MINUTES 8 8 3640 MINUTES 8 (SPECIFY ______) ______)

9 4145 MINUTES 9 9 4145 MINUTES 9 0 0 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station F18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

X DONT KNOW /REFUSED X DONT KNOW /REFUSED

9. If you were advised by local authorities to evacuate, how much time would it take the household to pack clothing, medications, secure the house, load the car, and complete preparations prior to evacuating the area? (DO NOT READ ANSWERS)

COL. 45 COL. 46 1 LESS THAN 15 MINUTES 1 3 HOURS TO 3 HOURS 15 MINUTES 2 1530 MINUTES 2 3 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS 30 MINUTES 3 3145 MINUTES 3 3 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS 45 MINUTES 4 46 MINUTES - 1 HOUR 4 3 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS 5 1 HOUR TO 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES 5 4 HOURS TO 4 HOURS 15 MINUTES 6 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES 6 4 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS 30 MINUTES 7 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES 7 4 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS 45 MINUTES 8 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 8 4 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 5 HOURS 9 2 HOURS TO 2 HOURS 15 MINUTES 9 5 HOURS TO 5 HOURS 30 MINUTES 0 2 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 30 MINUTES 0 5 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 6 HOURS X 2 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 45 MINUTES X OVER 6 HOURS (SPECIFY _______)

Y 2 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS COL. 47 1 DONT KNOW/REFUSED 10 If there is 68 of snow on your driveway or curb, would you need to shovel out to evacuate? If yes, how

. much time, on average, would it take you to clear the 68 of snow to move the car from the driveway or curb to begin the evacuation trip? Assume the roads are passable. (DO NOT READ RESPONSES)

COL. 48 COL. 49 1 LESS THAN 15 MINUTES 1 OVER 3 HOURS (SPECIFY _______)

2 1530 MINUTES 2 DONT KNOW/REFUSED 3 3145 MINUTES 4 46 MINUTES - 1 HOUR 5 1 HOUR TO 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES 6 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES 7 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES 8 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 9 2 HOURS TO 2 HOURS 15 MINUTES 0 2 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 30 MINUTES X 2 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 45 MINUTES Y 2 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS Z NO, WILL NOT SHOVEL OUT Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station F19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

11. Please choose one of the following (READ COL. 50 ANSWERS): 1 A If you were at home and were asked to evacuate, 2 B A. I would await the return of household commuters to evacuate together.

B. I would evacuate independently and meet X DONT KNOW/REFUSED other household members later.

12. How many vehicles would your household use during an evacuation? (DO NOT READ ANSWERS)

COL. 51 1 ONE 2 TWO 3 THREE 4 FOUR 5 FIVE 6 SIX 7 SEVEN 8 EIGHT 9 NINE OR MORE 0 ZERO (NONE)

X DONT KNOW/REFUSED 13A. Emergency officials advise you to COL. 52 take shelter at home in an 1 A emergency. Would you: (READ 2 B ANSWERS)

X DONT KNOW/REFUSED A. SHELTER; or B. EVACUATE 13B. Emergency officials advise you to COL. 53 take shelter at home now in an 1 A emergency and possibly evacuate 2 B later while people in other areas are advised to evacuate now. Would you: X DONT KNOW/REFUSED (READ ANSWERS)

A. SHELTER; or B. EVACUATE

14. If you have a household pet, how many of them would you take with you if you were asked to evacuate the area? (READ ANSWERS)

COL. 54 0 WOULD NOT TAKE PET 1 WOULD TAKE ONE PET 2 WOULD TAKE TWO PETS 3 WOULD TAKE MORE THAN 2 PETS X DO NOT HAVE A PET Y DONT KNOW/REFUSED Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station F20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Thank you very much. _______________________________

(TELEPHONE NUMBER CALLED)

IF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS REQUESTED:

The only information I have is that which was given in the opening of this phone call. Would you like for me to repeat this information?

IF ASKED TO REPEAT OPENING INFORMATION:

Im working for First Market Research on a survey for local emergency management agencies to identify local behavior during emergency situations. This information will be used for emergency planning and will be shared with local officials to enhance emergency response plans in your area for all hazards; emergency planning for some hazards may require evacuation. Your responses will greatly contribute to local emergency preparedness.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station F21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX G Traffic Management Plan

G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN NUREG/CR7002 indicates that the existing TCPs and ACPs identified by the offsite agencies should be used in the evacuation simulation modeling. The traffic and access control plans for the EPZ were provided by each county.

These plans were reviewed and the TCPs were modeled accordingly.

G.1 Traffic Control Points As discussed in Section 9, traffic control points at intersections (which are controlled) are modeled as actuated signals. If an intersection has a pretimed signal, stop, or yield control, and the intersection is identified as a traffic control point, the control type was changed to an actuated signal in the DYNEV II system. Table K2 provides the control type and node number for those nodes which are controlled. If the existing control was changed due to the point being a traffic control point, the control type is indicated as TCP in Table K2.

G.2 Access Control Points It is assumed that ACPs will be established within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months of the advisory to evacuate to discourage through travelers from using major through routes which traverse the EPZ. As discussed in Section 3.7, external traffic was considered on two routes which traverse the study area - I680 and I29 - in this analysis. The generation of the external trips on these interstates ceased at 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months after the advisory to evacuate in the simulation due to the ACPs.

Figure G1 maps the ACPs identified in the county emergency plans. These ACPs are concentrated on roadways giving access to the EPZ. Theses ACPs would be manned during evacuation by traffic guides who would direct evacuees in the proper direction away from FCNS and facilitate the flow of traffic through the intersections.

This study did not identify any additional intersections that should be identified as TCPs or ACPs.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station G1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure G1. Traffic and Access Control Points for FCNS Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station G2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX H Evacuation Regions

H EVACUATION REGIONS This appendix presents the evacuation percentages for each Evacuation Region (Table H1) and maps of all Evacuation Regions. The percentages presented in Table H1 are based on the methodology discussed in assumption 5 of Section 2.2 and shown in Figure 21.

Note the baseline ETE study assumes 20 percent of households will not comply with the shelter advisory, as per Section 2.5.2 of NUREG/CR7002.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table H1. Percent of PAZ Population Evacuating for Each Region Sub Area Region Description 1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 R01 2Mile Radius 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R02 5Mile Radius 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100%

R03 Full EPZ 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Direction Sub Area Region Towards 1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 R04 NW, NNW, N, NNE 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20%

R05 NE 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20%

R06 ENE, E 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100%

R07 ESE, SE 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100%

R08 SSE 100% 20% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100%

R09 S 100% 20% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R10 SSW 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R11 SW, WSW, W 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R12 WNW 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Evacuate 5Mile Radius and Downwind to EPZ Boundary Wind Direction Sub Area Region Towards 1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 R13 N, NW, NNW 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100%

R14 NNE, NE, ENE 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

R15 E, ESE 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100%

R16 SE, SSE, S, SSW, SW 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100%

N/A WSW, W, WNW Refer to R02 ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate SubArea(s) ShelterinPlace SubArea(s) Evacuate Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to EPZ Boundary Sub Area Region Wind Direction Towards 1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 R17 NW, NNW, N, NNE 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20%

R18 NNE 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20%

R19 NE 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20%

R20 ENE 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

R21 E 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100%

R22 ESE 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 100% 100%

R23 SE 100% 20% 100% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100%

R24 SSE 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100%

R25 S 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R26 SSW 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R27 SW 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

N/A WSW, W Refer to R11 N/A WNW Refer to R12 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Sub Area Region Wind Direction Towards 1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 R28 NW, NNW, N, NNE 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20%

R29 NE 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20%

R30 ENE, E 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100%

R31 ESE, SE 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100%

R32 SSE 100% 20% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100%

R33 S 100% 20% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R34 SSW 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R35 SW, WSW, W 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R36 WNW 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R37 5Mile Region 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100%

ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate SubArea(s) ShelterinPlace SubArea(s) Evacuate Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H1. Region R01 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H2. Region R02 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H3. Region R03 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H4. Region R04 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H5. Region R05 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H6. Region R06 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H7. Region R07 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H8. Region R08 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H9. Region R09 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H10. Region R10 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H11 Region R11 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H12 Region R12 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H13 Region R13 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H14 Region R14 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H15 Region R15 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H16 Region R16 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H17 Region R17 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H18 Region R18 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H19 Region R19 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H20 Region R20 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H21 Region R21 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H22 Region R22 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H23 Region R23 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H24 Region R24 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H25 Region R25 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H26 Region R26 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H27 Region R27 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H30 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H28 Region R28 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H29 Region R29 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H30 Region R30 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H31 Region R31 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H32 Region R32 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H35 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H33 Region R33 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H36 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H34 Region R34 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H37 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H35 Region R35 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H38 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H36 Region R36 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H39 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H37 Region R37 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station H40 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX J Representative Inputs to and Outputs from the DYNEV II System

J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM This appendix presents data input to and output from the DYNEV II System. Table J1 provides the volume and queues for the ten highest volume signalized intersections in the study area.

Refer to Table K2 and the figures in Appendix K for a map showing the geographic location of each intersection.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station J1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table J2 provides source (vehicle loading) and destination information for several roadway segments (links) in the analysis network. Refer to Table K1 and the figures in Appendix K for a map showing the geographic location of each link.

Table J3 provides network-wide statistics (average travel time, average speed and number of vehicles) for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) for each scenario. As expected, Scenarios 8 and 11, which are snow scenarios, exhibit the slowest average speed and longest average travel times.

Table J4 provides statistics (average speed and travel time) for the major evacuation routes -

US 75, US 30, SR 91, and I29 - for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 conditions. As discussed in Section 7.3 and shown in Figures 73 through 76, US 30 and US 75 are congested during the early portion of the evacuation. As such, the average speeds are comparably slower (and travel times longer) than other evacuation routes.

Table J5 provides the cumulative number of vehicles discharged and the cumulative percent of total vehicles discharged for each link exiting the analysis network, for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 conditions. Refer to Table K1 and the figures in Appendix K for a map showing the geographic location of each link.

Figure J1 through Figure J14 plot the trip generation time versus the ETE for each of the 14 Scenarios considered. The distance between the trip generation and ETE curves is the travel time. Plots of trip generation versus ETE are indicative of the level of traffic congestion during evacuation. For low population density sites, the curves are close together, indicating short travel times and minimal traffic congestion. For higher population density sites, the curves are farther apart indicating longer travel times and the presence of traffic congestion. As seen in Figure J1 through Figure J14, the curves are close together as a result of minimal congestion in the EPZ, which was discussed in detail in Section 7.3.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station J2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table J1. Characteristics of the Ten Highest Volume Signalized Intersections Max.

Approach Total Turn Intersection (Up Volume Queue Node Location Control Node) (Veh) (Veh) 707 2,419 0 211 116 0 72 US 30 and SR 91 Actuated 73 824 0 TOTAL 3,359 213 722 67 212 US 30 and CR P30 Actuated 220 1,815 56 TOTAL 2,537 708 65 0 82 1,882 2 505 US 30 and 16th St Pretimed 506 166 0 511 348 1 TOTAL 2,461 72 65 0 505 2,325 37 708 US 30 and 17th St Pretimed 709 41 0 TOTAL 2,431 210 0 0 72 1,461 0 211 US 30 and South St Actuated 507 183 0 506 301 0 TOTAL 1,945 505 136 0 509 1,189 0 82 US 30 and US 75 Pretimed 306 590 0 TOTAL 1,915 73 1,313 0 515 252 0 74 US 75 and Wright St Actuated 516 264 0 823 1 0 TOTAL 1,830 312 63 0 715 44 0 313 SR 36 and SR 29 Actuated 760 1,716 0 TOTAL 1,823 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station J3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Max.

Approach Total Turn Intersection (Up Volume Queue Node Location Control Node) (Veh) (Veh) 823 1,314 0 513 239 0 512 US 75 and Deerfield blvd Actuated 514 243 0 TOTAL 1,796 577 354 0 578 US 30 and SR 127 Actuated 579 1,353 0 TOTAL 1,707 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station J4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table J2. Sample Simulation Model Input Vehicles Entering Link Network Directional Destination Destination Number on this Link Preference Nodes Capacity 8044 4,500 649 62 SW 8003 4,500 676 104 W 8201 1,698 8071 9,000 664 219 SE 8389 3,810 8388 1,698 8044 4,500 892 59 NE 8033 4,500 8003 4,500 203 3 E 8582 1,572 322 48 S 8304 1,698 8389 3,810 417 3 S 8292 3,810 8293 3,810 8389 3,810 540 27 SE 8388 1,698 8071 9,000 8003 4,500 720 3 N 8044 4,500 8389 3,810 966 71 S 8388 1,698 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station J5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table J3. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03)

Scenario 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NetworkWide Average 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 Travel Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 48.0 43.0 49.5 44.3 47.4 47.7 42.8 40.2 49.8 44.6 42.0 47.8 47.7 46.4 Speed (mph)

Total Vehicles 26,523 26,620 24,183 24,277 20,964 26,324 26,419 26,558 23,621 23,704 23,807 20,629 24,188 23,448 Exiting Network Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station J6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table J4. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, Scenario 1)

Elapsed Time (hours) 1 2 3 4 Travel Length Speed Time Travel Travel Travel Route (miles) (mph) (min) Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time I29 N 15.0 70.0 12.8 68.4 13.1 70.0 12.8 70.0 12.8 I29 S 9.3 69.9 8.0 68.9 8.1 69.9 8.0 70.0 8.0 US 75 S 10.0 38.0 15.8 54.3 11.0 54.5 11.0 54.5 11.0 US 75 N 7.3 39.4 11.1 53.3 8.2 53.8 8.1 53.9 8.1 SR 91 W 6.4 50.2 7.6 54.2 7.0 54.2 7.0 54.2 7.0 US 30 W 11.3 37.6 18.0 49.9 13.6 50.1 13.5 50.7 13.4 US 30 E 9.9 51.9 11.4 50.7 11.7 55.0 10.8 55.7 10.7 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station J7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table J5. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 Elapsed Time (hours)

EPZ 1 2 3 4 Exit Cumulative Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Link Cumulative Percent of Vehicles Discharged During the Indicated Time Interval 331 528 573 580 2

4 2 2 2 1,652 2,216 2,260 2,270 59 18 10 9 9 1,042 1,469 1,494 1,499 83 12 7 6 6 1,558 3,764 4,332 4,451 141 17 17 17 17 521 1,427 1,700 1,758 158 6 6 7 7 352 745 840 860 202 4 3 3 3 256 836 903 908 209 3 4 4 3 394 971 1,139 1,177 224 4 4 4 4 207 619 707 727 285 2 3 3 3 57 220 254 257 288 1 1 1 1 74 243 302 331 316 1 1 1 1 62 375 463 484 347 1 2 2 2 87 531 655 682 348 1 2 3 3 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station J8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Elapsed Time (hours)

Network 1 2 3 4 Exit Link Cumulative Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Cumulative Percent of Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time 35 240 298 313 349 0 1 1 1 128 621 745 774 367 1 3 3 3 163 613 733 757 373 2 3 3 3 40 173 209 216 464 0 1 1 1 183 864 1,041 1,077 483 2 4 4 4 95 395 470 487 508 1 2 2 2 108 596 736 771 512 1 3 3 3 70 478 593 618 513 1 2 2 2 172 803 956 991 532 2 4 4 4 615 1,462 1,660 1,701 758 7 6 6 6 1 8 10 10 813 0 0 0 0 171 248 266 270 878 2 1 1 1 98 521 602 618 952 1 2 2 2 564 1,579 1,764 1,803 1036 6 7 7 7 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station J9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 1)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J1. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station J10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 3)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station J11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 5)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 6)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J6. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6)

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station J12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario 8)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario 8)

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station J13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 9)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10)

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station J14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario 11)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario 11)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 12)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12)

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station J15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Evening, Good, Special Event (Scenario 13)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J13. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J14. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station J16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX K Evacuation Roadway Network

K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK As discussed in Section 1.3, a linknode analysis network was constructed to model the roadway network within the study area. Figure K1 provides an overview of the linknode analysis network. The figure has been divided up into 59 more detailed figures (Figure K2 through Figure K36) which show each of the links and nodes in the network.

The analysis network was calibrated using the observations made during the field survey conducted in February 2012. Table K1 lists the characteristics of each roadway section modeled in the ETE analysis. Each link is identified by its road name and the upstream and downstream node numbers. The geographic location of each link can be observed by referencing the grid map number provided in Table K1. The roadway type identified in Table K1 is generally based on the following criteria:

Freeway: limited access highway, 2 or more lanes in each direction, high free flow speeds Freeway ramp: ramp on to or off of a limited access highway Major arterial: 3 or more lanes in each direction Minor arterial: 2 or more lanes in each direction Collector: single lane in each direction Local roadways: single lane in each direction, local roads with low free flow speeds The term, No. of Lanes in Table K1 identifies the number of lanes that extend throughout the length of the link. Many links have additional lanes on the immediate approach to an intersection (turn pockets); these have been recorded and entered into the input stream for the DYNEV II System.

As discussed in Section 1.3, lane width and shoulder width were not physically measured during the road survey. Rather, estimates of these measures were based on visual observations and recorded images.

Table K2 identifies each node in the network that is controlled and the type of control (stop sign, yield sign, pretimed signal, actuated signal, traffic control point) at that node.

Uncontrolled nodes are not included in Table K2. The location of each node can be observed by referencing the grid map number provided.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K1. Fort Calhoun LinkNode Analysis Network Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K2. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 1 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K3. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 2 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K4. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 3 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K5. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 4 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K6. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 5 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K7. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 6 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K8. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 7 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K9. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 8 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K10. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 9 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K11. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 10 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K12. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 11 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K13. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 12 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K14. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 13 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K15. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 14 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K16. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 15 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K17. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 16 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K18. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 17 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K19. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 18 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K20. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 19 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K21. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 20 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K22. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 21 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K23. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 22 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K24. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 23 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K25. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 24 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K26. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 25 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K27. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 26 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K28. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 27 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K29. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 28 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K30 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K30. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 29 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K31. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 30 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K32. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 31 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K33. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 32 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K34. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 33 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K35 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K35. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 34 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K36 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K36. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 35 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K37 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table K1. Evacuation Roadway Network Characteristics Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1 3 4 I 29 FREEWAY 2781 2 12 6 2250 70 1 EXIT LINK 3 8003 I 29 FREEWAY 2131 2 12 6 2250 70 1 2 4 3 I 29 FREEWAY 2781 2 12 6 2250 70 1 3 4 5 I 29 FREEWAY 1896 2 12 6 2250 70 4 4 5 4 I 29 FREEWAY 1896 2 12 6 2250 70 4 5 5 700 I 29 FREEWAY 4335 2 12 6 2250 70 4 6 6 7 I 29 FREEWAY 9377 2 12 6 2250 70 4 7 6 700 I 29 FREEWAY 2691 2 12 6 2250 70 4 8 7 6 I 29 FREEWAY 9377 2 12 6 2250 70 4 9 7 8 I 29 FREEWAY 11984 2 12 6 2250 70 4 10 8 7 I 29 FREEWAY 11984 2 12 6 2250 70 4 11 8 9 I 29 FREEWAY 14040 2 12 6 2250 70 11 12 9 8 I 29 FREEWAY 14040 2 12 6 2250 70 11 13 9 10 I 29 FREEWAY 2503 2 12 6 2250 70 11 14 10 9 I 29 FREEWAY 2503 2 12 6 2250 70 11 15 10 11 I 29 FREEWAY 24196 2 12 6 2250 70 11 16 11 10 I 29 FREEWAY 24196 2 12 6 2250 70 11 17 11 12 I 29 FREEWAY 3648 2 12 6 2250 70 11 18 12 11 I 29 FREEWAY 3622 2 12 6 2250 70 11 19 12 13 I 29 FREEWAY 2727 2 12 6 2250 70 11 20 13 12 I 29 FREEWAY 2727 2 12 6 2250 70 11 21 13 705 I 29 FREEWAY 1320 2 12 6 2250 70 11 22 14 13 I 29 FREEWAY 2661 2 12 6 2250 70 17 23 14 15 I 29 FREEWAY 9332 2 12 6 2250 70 17 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K38 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 24 15 14 I 29 FREEWAY 9332 2 12 6 2250 70 17 25 15 16 I 29 FREEWAY 2790 2 12 6 2250 70 17 26 16 15 I 29 FREEWAY 2822 2 12 6 2250 70 17 27 16 17 I 29 FREEWAY 3306 2 12 6 2250 70 18 28 17 16 I 29 FREEWAY 3306 2 12 6 2250 70 18 29 17 18 I 29 FREEWAY 1829 2 12 6 2250 70 18 30 18 17 I 29 FREEWAY 1834 2 12 6 2250 70 18 31 18 19 I 29 FREEWAY 1413 2 12 6 2250 70 18 32 19 18 I 29 FREEWAY 1412 2 12 6 2250 70 18 33 19 20 I 29 FREEWAY 928 2 12 6 2250 70 18 34 20 19 I 29 FREEWAY 928 2 12 6 2250 70 18 35 20 35 I 29 FREEWAY 2001 2 12 6 2250 70 18 36 22 23 I 29 FREEWAY 1619 2 12 6 2250 70 18 37 22 35 I 29 FREEWAY 403 2 12 6 2250 70 18 38 22 36 I 29 I 680 RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 1963 1 12 6 1700 45 18 39 23 22 I 29 FREEWAY 1619 2 12 6 2250 70 18 40 23 24 I 29 FREEWAY 4127 2 12 6 2250 70 18 41 24 23 I 29 FREEWAY 4127 2 12 6 2250 70 18 42 24 25 I 29 FREEWAY 16797 2 12 6 2250 70 24 43 25 24 I 29 FREEWAY 16797 2 12 6 2250 70 24 44 25 26 I 29 FREEWAY 3057 2 12 6 2250 70 24 45 26 25 I 29 FREEWAY 3057 2 12 6 2250 70 24 46 26 27 I 29 FREEWAY 1450 2 12 6 2250 70 24 47 27 26 I 29 FREEWAY 1450 2 12 6 2250 70 24 48 27 28 I 29 FREEWAY 3476 2 12 6 2250 70 24 49 28 27 I 29 FREEWAY 3476 2 12 6 2250 70 24 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K39 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 50 28 29 I 29 FREEWAY 14711 2 12 6 2250 70 24 51 29 28 I 29 FREEWAY 14711 2 12 6 2250 70 24 52 29 30 I 29 FREEWAY 2525 2 12 6 2250 70 35 53 30 29 I 29 FREEWAY 2525 2 12 6 2250 70 35 54 30 31 I 29 FREEWAY 1805 2 12 6 2250 70 35 55 30 52 I 29 I 680 RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 2698 1 12 4 1700 45 35 56 31 30 I 29 FREEWAY 1800 2 12 6 2250 70 35 57 31 34 I 29 FREEWAY 415 2 12 6 2250 70 35 58 31 49 I 29 I 680 RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1411 1 12 4 1700 45 35 59 32 33 I 29 FREEWAY 2472 2 12 6 2250 70 35 60 32 34 I 29 FREEWAY 1122 2 12 6 2250 70 35 61 33 32 I 29 FREEWAY 2472 2 12 6 2250 70 35 EXIT LINK 33 8033 I 29 FREEWAY 2002 2 12 6 2250 70 35 62 34 31 I 29 FREEWAY 414 3 12 6 2250 70 35 63 34 32 I 29 FREEWAY 1122 2 12 6 2250 70 35 64 35 20 I 29 FREEWAY 2001 2 12 6 2250 70 18 65 35 22 I 29 FREEWAY 402 2 12 6 2250 70 18 66 35 45 I 29 I 680 RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 1143 1 12 6 1700 45 18 67 36 20 I 29 I 680 RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 1941 1 12 6 1700 45 18 68 36 37 I 680 FREEWAY 2944 2 12 8 2250 70 18 69 36 46 I 680 FREEWAY 1063 2 12 8 2250 70 18 70 37 36 I 680 FREEWAY 2944 2 12 8 2250 70 18 71 37 38 I 680 FREEWAY 2236 2 12 8 2250 70 18 72 38 37 I 680 FREEWAY 2237 2 12 8 2250 70 18 73 38 39 I 680 FREEWAY 2363 2 12 8 2250 70 18 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K40 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 74 39 38 I 680 FREEWAY 2362 2 12 8 2250 70 18 75 39 40 I 680 FREEWAY 3546 2 12 8 2250 70 18 76 40 39 I 680 FREEWAY 3557 2 12 8 2250 70 18 77 40 41 I 680 FREEWAY 1955 2 12 8 2250 70 18 78 41 40 I 680 FREEWAY 1953 2 12 8 2250 70 18 79 41 42 I 680 FREEWAY 2740 2 12 8 2250 70 18 80 42 41 I 680 FREEWAY 2740 2 12 8 2250 70 18 81 42 43 I 680 FREEWAY 5970 2 12 8 2250 70 18 82 43 42 I 680 FREEWAY 5970 2 12 8 2250 70 18 83 43 44 I 680 FREEWAY 8755 2 12 8 2250 70 18 84 44 43 I 680 FREEWAY 8755 2 12 8 2250 70 18 EXIT LINK 44 8044 I 680 FREEWAY 1316 2 12 8 2250 70 19 85 45 46 I 29 I 680 RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 1335 1 12 6 1700 45 18 86 45 47 I 29 I 680 RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 1089 2 12 0 1700 45 18 87 46 36 I 680 FREEWAY 1063 1 12 6 2250 70 18 88 46 45 I 29 I 680 RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 1343 2 12 0 1700 45 18 89 47 23 I 29 I 680 RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 1070 1 12 6 1700 45 18 90 48 51 CR G37 COLLECTOR 917 2 12 0 1900 55 35 91 48 654 OLD MORMON BRIDGE RD COLLECTOR 6798 1 12 4 1700 60 35 92 49 34 I 29 I 680 RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1401 1 12 4 1700 45 35 93 49 50 I 680 FREEWAY 471 3 12 8 2250 70 35 94 49 51 I 680 FREEWAY 413 2 12 8 2250 70 35 95 50 31 I 29 I 680 RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1559 1 12 4 1700 45 35 96 50 49 I 680 FREEWAY 471 3 12 8 2250 70 35 97 50 52 I 680 FREEWAY 1090 2 12 8 2250 70 35 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K41 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 98 51 30 I 29 I 680 RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 1952 1 12 4 1700 45 35 99 51 48 CR G37 COLLECTOR 918 2 12 0 1900 55 35 100 51 49 I 680 FREEWAY 413 2 12 8 2250 70 35 101 52 50 I 680 FREEWAY 1090 2 12 8 2250 70 35 102 52 53 I 680 FREEWAY 409 2 12 8 2250 70 35 103 53 32 I 29 I 680 RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 2320 1 12 4 1700 45 35 104 53 52 I 680 FREEWAY 409 2 12 8 2250 70 35 105 53 55 I 680 FREEWAY 4579 2 12 8 2250 70 35 106 55 53 I 680 FREEWAY 4579 2 12 8 2250 70 35 107 55 56 I 680 FREEWAY 2566 2 12 8 2250 70 35 108 56 55 I 680 FREEWAY 2570 2 12 8 2250 70 35 109 56 641 I 680 FREEWAY 2696 2 12 8 2250 70 30 110 57 58 I 680 FREEWAY 2782 2 12 8 2250 70 30 111 57 641 I 680 FREEWAY 2763 2 12 8 2250 70 30 112 58 57 I 680 FREEWAY 2782 2 12 8 2250 70 30 113 58 59 I 680 FREEWAY 2705 2 12 8 2250 70 30 114 59 58 I 680 FREEWAY 2714 2 12 8 2250 70 30 115 59 60 I 680 FREEWAY 1299 2 12 8 2250 70 30 116 60 59 I 680 FREEWAY 1299 2 12 8 2250 70 30 117 60 61 I 680 FREEWAY 750 2 12 8 2250 70 30 118 61 60 I 680 FREEWAY 750 2 12 8 2250 70 30 119 61 62 I 680 FREEWAY 3119 2 12 8 2250 70 30 120 62 61 I 680 FREEWAY 3119 2 12 8 2250 70 30 121 62 63 I 680 FREEWAY 5733 2 12 8 2250 70 29 122 63 62 I 680 FREEWAY 5733 2 12 8 2250 70 29 123 63 64 I 680 FREEWAY 3171 2 12 8 2250 70 29 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K42 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 124 64 63 I 680 FREEWAY 3171 2 12 8 2250 70 29 125 64 65 I 680 FREEWAY 1928 2 12 8 2250 70 29 126 64 317 I 680 N 72ND ST RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 981 1 12 0 1700 45 29 127 65 64 I 680 FREEWAY 1928 2 12 8 2250 70 29 128 65 66 I 680 FREEWAY 8884 2 12 8 2250 70 33 129 65 318 I 680 N 72ND ST RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 826 1 12 0 1700 45 29 130 66 65 I 680 FREEWAY 8884 2 12 8 2250 70 33 131 66 67 I 680 FREEWAY 3258 2 12 8 2250 70 32 132 67 66 I 680 FREEWAY 3258 2 12 8 2250 70 32 133 67 68 I 680 FREEWAY 2625 2 12 8 2250 70 32 134 67 294 I 680 SR 133 RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 1464 1 12 0 1700 45 32 135 68 67 I 680 FREEWAY 2691 2 12 8 2250 70 32 136 68 69 I 680 FREEWAY 3834 2 12 8 2250 70 32 137 68 295 I 680 SR 133 RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 958 1 12 0 1700 45 32 138 69 68 I 680 FREEWAY 3834 2 12 8 2250 70 32 139 69 303 I 680 FORT ST RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 891 1 12 0 1700 45 32 140 69 811 I 680 FREEWAY 1113 2 12 8 2250 70 32 141 70 71 I 680 FREEWAY 1353 4 12 8 2250 70 32 142 70 302 I 680 FORT ST RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 854 1 12 0 1700 45 32 143 70 811 I 680 FREEWAY 296 2 12 8 2250 70 32 144 71 70 I 680 FREEWAY 1353 3 12 8 2250 70 32 EXIT LINK 71 8071 I 680 FREEWAY 350 4 12 8 2250 70 32 145 72 73 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 1127 2 12 0 1900 45 16 146 72 158 SR 91 COLLECTOR 1758 1 12 4 1700 45 16 147 72 211 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1430 2 12 0 1900 40 16 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K43 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 148 72 708 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 932 2 12 0 1900 35 16 149 73 74 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 1438 2 12 0 1900 45 16 150 74 512 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 1936 2 12 0 1900 45 16 151 75 194 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 749 1 12 4 1700 60 9 152 76 77 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 9260 1 12 8 1700 60 9 153 77 78 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 3245 1 12 8 1700 60 9 154 78 79 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 6473 1 12 8 1700 60 9 155 79 178 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 12857 1 12 8 1700 60 3 156 80 81 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 9985 1 12 8 1700 60 3 EXIT LINK 81 8081 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 1186 1 12 8 1700 60 3 157 82 505 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1325 2 12 0 1900 35 16 158 82 509 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1277 2 12 0 1900 35 16 159 83 509 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 2719 2 12 0 1900 50 16 160 83 689 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1155 2 12 0 1900 50 16 161 84 85 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 11926 1 12 4 1700 60 16 162 84 682 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 2381 1 12 4 1700 45 16 163 85 84 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 11926 1 12 4 1700 60 16 164 85 605 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 6513 1 12 4 1700 60 16 165 86 14 I 29 US 30 RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 1229 1 12 4 1700 45 17 166 86 87 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1046 2 12 4 1900 55 17 167 87 13 I 29 US 30 RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 1623 1 12 4 1700 45 11 168 87 99 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1286 2 12 4 1900 55 18 169 87 706 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 764 1 12 4 1700 55 17 170 88 89 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1548 1 12 4 1700 50 12 171 88 99 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 843 2 12 4 1900 55 18 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K44 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 172 89 88 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1548 1 12 4 1700 50 12 173 89 90 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1179 1 12 4 1700 50 12 174 90 89 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1146 1 12 4 1700 50 12 175 90 618 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1929 1 12 0 1700 45 12 176 91 92 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 788 1 12 0 1350 30 12 177 91 621 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1035 1 12 0 1575 35 12 178 92 91 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 791 1 12 0 1350 30 12 179 92 695 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1209 1 12 0 1700 45 12 180 93 94 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1050 1 12 4 1700 55 12 181 93 695 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1802 1 12 4 1700 45 12 182 94 95 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1550 1 12 4 1700 55 12 183 95 96 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1028 1 12 4 1700 55 12 184 96 97 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 3098 1 12 4 1700 60 12 185 97 98 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1947 1 12 4 1700 50 12 186 98 111 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 2149 1 12 4 1700 60 12 187 98 612 F58 COLLECTOR 2320 1 12 0 1700 55 12 188 99 87 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1282 2 12 4 1900 55 18 189 99 88 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 844 2 12 4 1900 55 18 190 100 101 CR F 66 COLLECTOR 6863 1 12 0 1700 45 18 191 101 117 CR F 66 COLLECTOR 1003 1 12 0 1700 45 18 192 102 103 CR F 66 COLLECTOR 1906 1 12 0 1700 45 18 193 103 104 CR F 66 COLLECTOR 3803 1 12 0 1700 45 18 194 104 105 CR F 66 COLLECTOR 3674 1 12 0 1700 45 18 195 105 116 CR F 66 COLLECTOR 1401 1 12 0 1700 45 18 196 106 107 CR F 66 COLLECTOR 2078 1 12 0 1700 45 18 197 107 108 CR F 66 COLLECTOR 676 1 12 0 1700 45 18 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K45 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 198 108 109 CR F 66 COLLECTOR 1880 1 12 0 1700 45 19 199 109 110 CR F 66 COLLECTOR 664 1 12 0 1700 45 19 200 110 115 CR F 66 COLLECTOR 2556 1 12 0 1700 45 19 201 111 112 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 5194 1 12 4 1700 60 12 202 112 113 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 7458 1 12 4 1700 60 12 203 113 581 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 11754 1 12 4 1700 60 12 EXIT LINK 115 8115 CR F 66 COLLECTOR 742 1 12 0 1700 45 19 204 116 106 CR F 66 COLLECTOR 2656 1 12 0 1700 45 18 205 117 102 CR F 66 COLLECTOR 1183 1 12 0 1700 45 18 206 118 122 CR 4 MINOR ARTERIAL 6421 1 12 0 1700 55 2 207 118 124 CR 4 COLLECTOR 886 1 12 0 1700 60 2 208 119 120 CR 4 COLLECTOR 3510 1 12 0 1700 50 2 209 119 122 CR 4 COLLECTOR 803 1 12 0 1700 45 2 210 120 119 CR 4 COLLECTOR 3497 1 12 0 1700 50 2 211 120 121 CR 4 MINOR ARTERIAL 7283 1 12 0 1700 55 2 212 121 120 CR 4 COLLECTOR 7286 1 12 0 1700 55 2 213 121 123 CR 4 MINOR ARTERIAL 8702 1 12 0 1700 60 3 214 122 118 CR 4 COLLECTOR 6421 1 12 0 1700 55 2 215 122 119 CR 4 COLLECTOR 789 1 12 0 1700 45 2 216 123 80 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 3155 1 12 8 1700 45 3 217 123 121 CR 4 COLLECTOR 8703 1 12 0 1700 60 3 EXIT LINK 124 8124 CR 4 COLLECTOR 1099 1 12 0 1700 60 2 218 125 118 CR 15 COLLECTOR 11500 1 12 0 1700 60 8 219 126 125 CR 15 COLLECTOR 3107 1 12 0 1700 55 8 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K46 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 220 126 127 CR 15 COLLECTOR 31696 1 12 0 1700 60 8 221 127 126 CR 15 COLLECTOR 31696 1 12 0 1700 60 8 222 127 206 SR 91 COLLECTOR 16533 1 12 0 1700 60 14 223 127 236 CR 15 COLLECTOR 10663 1 12 0 1700 60 14 224 150 123 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 2353 1 12 0 1575 35 3 225 157 166 SR 91 COLLECTOR 5253 1 12 0 1700 60 15 226 158 159 SR 91 COLLECTOR 838 1 12 4 1700 40 15 251 210 211 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1271 2 12 0 1900 50 16 252 211 72 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1430 2 12 0 1900 40 16 253 211 210 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1271 2 12 0 1900 50 16 277 231 333 SR 36 COLLECTOR 10318 1 12 8 1700 60 26 278 232 272 SR 36 COLLECTOR 2976 1 12 8 1700 60 26 279 232 333 SR 36 COLLECTOR 5256 1 12 8 1700 60 26 280 232 335 N 168TH ST COLLECTOR 5247 1 12 0 1700 45 26 281 236 127 CR 15 COLLECTOR 10663 1 12 0 1700 60 14 282 236 200 CR 15 COLLECTOR 20866 1 12 0 1700 60 14 283 238 258 SR 36 COLLECTOR 3545 1 12 6 1700 60 25 284 239 238 SR 36 COLLECTOR 6688 1 12 6 1700 60 25 285 239 241 CR 84 COLLECTOR 5361 1 12 0 1700 50 26 EXIT LINK 240 8240 CR 84 COLLECTOR 752 1 12 0 1700 50 26 286 241 240 CR 84 COLLECTOR 3892 1 12 0 1700 50 26 287 242 243 CR 38 COLLECTOR 1602 1 12 0 1700 60 20 288 242 255 CR 19 COLLECTOR 6954 1 12 0 1700 60 20 289 243 242 CR 38 COLLECTOR 1601 1 12 0 1700 60 20 290 243 244 CR 38 COLLECTOR 1476 1 12 0 1700 50 20 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K47 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 291 244 243 CR 38 COLLECTOR 1498 1 12 0 1700 55 20 292 244 245 CR 38 COLLECTOR 8645 1 12 0 1700 60 20 293 245 244 CR 38 COLLECTOR 8645 1 12 0 1700 60 20 294 245 246 CR 38 COLLECTOR 838 1 12 0 1700 50 20 295 246 245 CR 38 COLLECTOR 832 1 12 0 1700 50 20 296 246 247 CR 15 COLLECTOR 380 1 12 0 1700 60 20 297 246 248 CR 15 LOCAL ROADWAY 3840 1 12 0 1700 40 20 831 625 624 OLD LINCOLN HWY COLLECTOR 4009 1 12 4 1700 55 18 832 625 626 OLD LINCOLN HWY COLLECTOR 1291 1 12 4 1700 55 18 833 626 625 OLD LINCOLN HWY COLLECTOR 1305 1 12 4 1700 55 18 834 626 627 OLD LINCOLN HWY COLLECTOR 6871 1 12 4 1700 55 18 835 627 611 OLD LINCOLN HWY COLLECTOR 973 1 12 4 1700 55 18 836 627 626 OLD LINCOLN HWY COLLECTOR 6871 1 12 4 1700 55 18 837 629 621 N 6TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 704 1 12 0 1350 30 12 838 630 611 OLD LINCOLN HWY COLLECTOR 23053 1 12 4 1700 60 18 839 630 633 OLD LINCOLN HWY COLLECTOR 1769 1 12 4 1700 55 24 840 631 632 OLD LINCOLN HWY COLLECTOR 1388 1 12 4 1700 50 24 841 632 663 OLD LINCOLN HWY COLLECTOR 2218 1 12 4 1700 55 24 842 633 630 OLD LINCOLN HWY COLLECTOR 1769 1 12 4 1700 55 24 843 633 631 OLD LINCOLN HWY COLLECTOR 1605 1 12 4 1700 50 24 844 633 634 SUMAC RD COLLECTOR 6552 1 12 0 1575 35 24 845 634 633 SUMAC RD COLLECTOR 6552 1 12 0 1575 35 24 846 634 635 152ND ST COLLECTOR 3800 1 12 0 1575 35 24 847 635 634 152ND ST COLLECTOR 3800 1 12 0 1575 35 24 848 635 636 152ND ST COLLECTOR 796 1 12 0 1575 35 24 849 636 635 152ND ST COLLECTOR 796 1 12 0 1575 35 24 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K48 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 850 636 637 152ND ST COLLECTOR 1290 1 12 0 1575 35 24 851 637 636 152ND ST COLLECTOR 1290 1 12 0 1575 35 24 852 637 639 ROSEWOOD RD COLLECTOR 1303 1 12 0 1700 40 24 853 638 640 ROSEWOOD RD COLLECTOR 1621 1 12 0 1700 40 24 854 638 653 145TH ST COLLECTOR 6641 1 12 0 1700 50 24 I 29 ROSEWOOD RD 855 639 26 RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 658 1 12 6 1700 45 24 856 639 637 ROSEWOOD RD COLLECTOR 1303 1 12 0 1700 40 24 857 639 640 ROSEWOOD RD COLLECTOR 1063 1 12 0 1700 40 24 I 29 ROSEWOOD RD 858 640 27 RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 1112 1 12 6 1700 45 24 859 640 639 ROSEWOOD RD COLLECTOR 1063 1 12 0 1700 40 24 860 641 56 I 680 FREEWAY 2696 2 12 8 2250 70 30 861 641 57 I 680 FREEWAY 2762 2 12 8 2250 70 30 862 642 641 I 680 130TH ST RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 1542 1 12 0 1700 45 30 863 642 643 130TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1094 1 12 0 1700 40 30 864 643 56 I 680 130TH ST RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 1606 1 12 0 1700 45 30 865 644 642 130TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 260 1 12 0 1700 40 30 866 645 644 145TH ST COLLECTOR 1294 1 12 0 1700 50 30 867 646 645 145TH ST COLLECTOR 2470 1 12 0 1700 50 30 868 647 646 145TH ST COLLECTOR 5144 1 12 0 1700 50 35 869 648 647 145TH ST COLLECTOR 1693 1 12 0 1700 50 35 254 212 781 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1355 1 12 4 1700 60 21 255 213 212 CR P30 COLLECTOR 583 1 12 0 1575 35 21 256 214 222 CR P30 COLLECTOR 8414 1 12 0 1700 60 15 257 214 478 SR 133 MINOR ARTERIAL 2907 1 12 8 1700 60 22 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K49 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 258 215 214 SR 133 MINOR ARTERIAL 2797 1 12 8 1700 60 16 259 216 215 SR 133 MINOR ARTERIAL 6388 1 12 8 1700 60 16 260 217 216 SR 133 MINOR ARTERIAL 4188 1 12 8 1700 60 16 261 218 219 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 8637 1 12 4 1700 60 15 262 219 220 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 2473 1 12 4 1700 60 15 263 219 222 CR 29 COLLECTOR 6341 1 12 0 1700 60 15 264 220 212 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 6254 1 12 4 1700 60 15 265 222 213 CR P30 COLLECTOR 5638 1 12 0 1700 60 21 266 223 224 SR 31 COLLECTOR 1877 1 12 4 1700 40 21 267 223 225 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 3306 1 12 4 1700 55 21 268 224 229 SR 31 COLLECTOR 4056 1 12 4 1700 60 21 269 225 226 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 2603 1 12 4 1700 60 21 270 226 227 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 12063 1 12 4 1700 60 21 271 227 228 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 3770 1 12 4 1700 55 20 272 228 200 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 2162 1 12 4 1700 60 20 273 229 251 SR 31 COLLECTOR 8579 1 12 4 1700 60 21 274 230 231 SR 31 COLLECTOR 5495 1 12 4 1700 60 26 275 231 239 SR 36 COLLECTOR 9302 1 12 8 1700 60 26 276 231 259 SR 31 COLLECTOR 5299 1 12 4 1700 60 26 870 649 648 145TH ST COLLECTOR 3211 1 12 0 1700 50 35 871 650 649 145TH ST COLLECTOR 5848 1 12 0 1700 50 35 872 651 814 145TH ST COLLECTOR 643 1 12 0 1575 35 24 873 652 813 145TH ST COLLECTOR 1240 1 12 0 1575 35 24 874 653 638 145TH ST COLLECTOR 6641 1 12 0 1700 50 24 875 653 652 145TH ST COLLECTOR 1674 1 12 0 1700 40 24 876 654 655 OLD MORMON BRIDGE RD COLLECTOR 3674 1 12 4 1700 50 35 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K50 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 877 655 656 OLD LINCOLN HWY COLLECTOR 357 1 12 0 1575 35 35 EXIT LINK 656 8656 OLD LINCOLN HWY COLLECTOR 389 1 12 0 1575 35 35 878 657 655 OLD LINCOLN HWY COLLECTOR 2580 1 12 0 1575 35 35 879 658 657 OLD LINCOLN HWY COLLECTOR 3037 1 12 4 1700 45 35 880 659 658 OLD LINCOLN HWY COLLECTOR 4804 1 12 4 1700 55 24 881 660 659 OLD LINCOLN HWY COLLECTOR 7147 1 12 4 1700 55 24 882 661 660 OLD LINCOLN HWY COLLECTOR 3188 1 12 4 1700 45 24 883 662 661 OLD LINCOLN HWY COLLECTOR 4177 1 12 4 1700 55 24 884 663 662 OLD LINCOLN HWY COLLECTOR 2648 1 12 4 1700 55 24 885 664 458 N 72ND ST COLLECTOR 2148 1 12 0 1700 45 23 886 664 665 CR 40 LOCAL ROADWAY 5604 1 12 0 1575 35 23 887 665 500 CR 40 LOCAL ROADWAY 1229 1 12 0 1575 35 23 888 666 664 N 72ND ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2313 1 12 0 1700 45 23 EXIT LINK 667 8667 SR 133 MINOR ARTERIAL 442 2 12 0 1900 45 32 889 668 669 DESOTO AVE COLLECTOR 7775 1 12 0 1700 40 17 890 669 606 DESOTO AVE COLLECTOR 2006 1 12 0 1700 40 17 891 673 704 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 26990 1 12 4 1700 65 17 892 674 673 DESOTO AVE COLLECTOR 2742 1 12 0 1700 45 16 893 675 308 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 6452 1 12 8 1700 55 16 894 679 680 INDUSTRIAL PARK DR COLLECTOR 366 1 12 0 1575 35 16 895 680 681 INDUSTRIAL PARK DR COLLECTOR 754 1 12 0 1575 35 16 896 681 682 INDUSTRIAL PARK DR COLLECTOR 931 1 12 0 1575 35 16 897 682 84 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 2381 1 12 4 1700 45 16 922 704 86 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 2246 2 12 4 1900 55 17 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K51 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 923 705 14 I 29 FREEWAY 1341 2 12 6 2250 70 17 924 706 705 I 29 US 30 RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 1112 1 12 4 1700 45 17 925 707 72 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 326 1 12 0 1575 35 16 926 708 505 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 445 2 12 0 1900 35 16 927 708 707 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 606 2 12 0 1900 35 16 928 709 708 S 17TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 671 1 12 0 1575 35 16 929 710 75 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 4779 1 12 8 1700 60 15 US 30 SR 133 930 711 712 ROUNDABOUT MINOR ARTERIAL 201 1 12 0 1125 25 16 931 712 713 SR 133 LOCAL ROADWAY 368 1 12 4 1700 45 16 932 713 217 SR 133 MINOR ARTERIAL 3067 1 12 8 1700 60 16 933 714 242 CR P38 LOCAL ROADWAY 1478 1 12 0 1575 35 21 934 715 313 SR 36 COLLECTOR 1588 1 12 0 1700 60 28 935 715 327 SR 36 COLLECTOR 401 2 12 0 1900 60 27 936 716 312 SR 36 COLLECTOR 3245 1 12 0 1700 60 28 937 717 456 N 72ND ST COLLECTOR 975 2 12 0 1900 50 29 938 718 443 SR 36 COLLECTOR 777 2 12 0 1900 60 29 939 719 394 MORMON BRIDGE RD COLLECTOR 3043 1 12 0 1700 45 29 940 719 442 MORMON BRIDGE RD COLLECTOR 351 2 12 6 1900 45 30 941 720 423 MCKINLEY ST COLLECTOR 384 2 12 0 1900 30 30 942 721 723 US 75 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1985 2 12 0 1900 40 34 943 722 721 REDDICK AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 681 1 12 0 1350 30 34 944 723 405 US 75 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1995 2 12 0 1900 40 34 945 724 723 LAUREL AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 778 1 12 0 1350 30 34 946 725 405 FORT ST COLLECTOR 694 1 12 0 1575 35 34 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K52 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 947 726 732 SORENSON PKWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 407 2 12 0 1900 50 34 948 727 395 SORENSON EXPY MINOR ARTERIAL 477 2 12 0 1900 55 34 949 729 395 US 75 MAJOR ARTERIAL 626 2 12 0 1900 50 34 950 730 729 N 30TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 231 2 12 4 1900 45 34 951 731 396 NORTH FWY FREEWAY 1488 2 12 8 2250 70 34 SORENSON PKWY NORTH 952 732 731 FWY RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 474 1 12 8 1700 45 34 953 733 726 N 30TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 873 1 12 0 1700 45 34 954 733 729 US 75 MAJOR ARTERIAL 501 2 12 0 1900 50 34 955 734 398 N 32ND ST LOCAL ROADWAY 565 1 12 0 1575 35 34 956 735 400 N 42ND ST COLLECTOR 593 1 12 0 1575 35 34 957 736 399 SORENSON PKWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 1201 2 12 0 1900 45 34 958 737 736 N 49TH ST COLLECTOR 532 1 12 0 1700 45 33 959 738 361 SORENSON PKWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 1346 2 12 0 1900 45 33 960 738 362 SORENSON PKWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 665 2 12 0 1900 45 33 961 739 366 N 60TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 825 2 12 0 1900 45 33 962 740 381 NEWPORT AVE COLLECTOR 463 1 12 0 1700 45 33 963 741 744 SORENSON PKWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 797 2 12 0 1900 50 33 964 742 741 N 65TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 555 1 12 0 1575 35 33 965 743 741 N 66TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 491 1 12 0 1575 35 33 966 744 366 SORENSON PKWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 1278 2 12 0 1900 50 33 967 745 744 RANCALI DRIVEWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 228 1 12 0 1350 30 33 968 746 324 STATE ST COLLECTOR 1527 1 12 0 1700 45 33 969 746 325 STATE ST COLLECTOR 2611 1 12 0 1700 45 33 970 746 375 N 78TH ST COLLECTOR 5341 1 12 0 1700 45 33 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K53 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 971 747 738 N 73RD PLAZA LOCAL ROADWAY 459 1 12 0 1350 30 33 972 748 753 READ ST LOCAL ROADWAY 487 1 12 0 1350 30 33 973 749 752 N 87TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 539 1 12 0 1350 30 32 WENNINGHOFF RD 974 750 752 ROUNDABOUT LOCAL ROADWAY 111 1 12 0 900 20 32 975 751 750 WENNINGHOFF RD COLLECTOR 1325 1 12 0 1700 40 32 WENNINGHOFF RD 976 752 356 ROUNDABOUT LOCAL ROADWAY 121 1 12 0 900 20 32 WENNINGHOFF RD 977 753 750 ROUNDABOUT LOCAL ROADWAY 117 1 12 0 900 20 32 WENNINGHOFF RD 978 754 755 ROUNDABOUT LOCAL ROADWAY 128 1 12 0 900 20 32 WENNINGHOFF RD 979 755 354 ROUNDABOUT LOCAL ROADWAY 138 1 12 0 900 20 32 WENNINGHOFF RD 980 756 754 ROUNDABOUT LOCAL ROADWAY 127 1 12 0 900 20 32 981 757 755 SHEFFIELD ST LOCAL ROADWAY 339 1 12 0 1350 30 32 982 758 756 SHEFFIELD ST LOCAL ROADWAY 340 1 12 0 1350 30 32 983 759 309 IDA ST COLLECTOR 1355 1 12 0 1700 40 32 984 759 346 SORENSON PKWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 1351 2 12 0 1900 50 32 985 760 313 SR 133 MAJOR ARTERIAL 3863 2 12 0 1900 60 28 986 761 286 CROWN POINT AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 577 1 12 0 1350 30 32 987 762 350 MILIARY RD ROUNDABOUT LOCAL ROADWAY 99 1 12 0 900 20 32 988 763 762 N OAKS BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 219 1 12 0 1350 30 32 989 764 300 N 99TH ST COLLECTOR 1326 1 12 0 1575 35 32 990 765 764 REDICK CIR LOCAL ROADWAY 384 1 12 0 1350 30 32 991 766 279 FORT ST COLLECTOR 4277 1 12 0 1700 45 31 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K54 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 992 766 289 FORT ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 874 2 12 0 1900 45 31 993 767 301 PARKVIEW DR LOCAL ROADWAY 663 1 12 0 1350 30 32 994 768 367 SR 133 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1887 2 12 0 1900 50 33 995 769 768 AURORA DR LOCAL ROADWAY 517 1 12 0 1350 30 33 996 770 387 HARTMAN AVE COLLECTOR 2247 1 12 0 1700 40 33 997 771 365 HARTMAN AVE COLLECTOR 601 2 12 0 1900 40 33 998 772 360 N 72ND ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 758 2 12 0 1900 50 33 999 773 772 N 72ND ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 1049 2 12 0 1900 50 33 1000 774 772 NEBRASKA PLAZA LOCAL ROADWAY 393 1 12 0 1350 30 33 1001 775 773 REDICK PLAZA LOCAL ROADWAY 322 1 12 0 1350 30 33 1002 776 360 CROWN POINT AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1412 2 12 0 1900 45 33 1003 777 776 N 74TH CT LOCAL ROADWAY 289 1 12 0 1350 30 33 1004 778 359 NORTHWEST HIGH SCHOOL LOCAL ROADWAY 253 1 12 0 1575 35 33 1005 779 343 CROWN POINT AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1236 2 12 0 1900 45 32 1006 780 779 NORTHWEST HIGH SCHOOL LOCAL ROADWAY 169 1 12 0 1575 35 33 1007 781 223 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 9700 1 12 4 1700 60 21 1008 782 781 MAIN ST LOCAL ROADWAY 557 1 12 0 1700 40 21 1009 783 468 CLAY ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1521 1 12 0 1575 35 23 1010 784 532 CR P51 COLLECTOR 3975 1 12 0 1700 45 23 1011 785 428 N 48TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2622 1 12 0 1700 40 29 1012 786 436 N 35TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1484 1 12 0 1575 35 30 1013 787 380 N 60TH ST COLLECTOR 3196 1 12 0 1700 45 33 1014 787 790 KING ST COLLECTOR 1408 1 12 0 1700 40 33 1015 788 392 MORMON BRIDGE RD COLLECTOR 781 1 12 0 1700 45 33 1016 788 789 N 54TH ST COLLECTOR 823 1 12 0 1350 30 33 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K55 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1017 789 788 N 54TH ST COLLECTOR 827 1 12 0 1350 30 33 1018 789 790 N 54TH ST COLLECTOR 769 1 12 0 1350 30 33 1019 790 787 KING ST COLLECTOR 1408 1 12 0 1700 40 33 1020 790 789 N 54TH ST COLLECTOR 763 1 12 0 1350 30 33 1021 791 387 N 52ND ST COLLECTOR 1345 1 12 0 1700 40 33 1022 792 791 KANSAS AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 1248 1 12 0 1350 30 33 1023 793 287 FORT ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 2178 2 12 0 1900 45 32 1024 793 303 FORT ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 341 2 12 0 1900 45 32 1025 794 793 N 103RD ST LOCAL ROADWAY 407 1 12 0 1575 35 32 1026 795 793 N 103RD ST LOCAL ROADWAY 483 2 12 0 1900 35 32 1027 796 287 N 108TH ST COLLECTOR 892 2 12 0 1900 45 32 1028 797 287 FORT ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 2098 2 12 0 1900 45 32 1029 797 289 FORT ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 3215 2 12 0 1900 45 32 1030 798 797 N 114TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1088 1 12 0 1575 35 32 1031 799 797 N 114TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 762 1 12 0 1575 35 32 1032 800 289 N 120TH ST COLLECTOR 840 2 12 0 1900 50 32 1033 801 277 FORT ST COLLECTOR 2292 1 12 0 1700 45 31 1034 802 801 N 138TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 394 1 12 0 1350 30 31 1035 803 201 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 3041 1 12 4 1700 40 20 1036 804 335 BENNINGTON RD COLLECTOR 3583 1 12 0 1700 55 26 1037 805 270 BENNINGTON RD COLLECTOR 2583 1 12 0 1575 35 27 1038 806 265 N 156TH ST COLLECTOR 5450 1 12 0 1700 50 26 1039 807 315 N 108TH ST COLLECTOR 2222 1 12 0 1700 50 28 1040 807 808 RAINWOOD RD COLLECTOR 2061 1 12 0 1700 45 28 1041 808 316 SR 133 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1933 2 12 8 1900 60 28 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K56 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1042 808 807 RAINWOOD RD COLLECTOR 2061 1 12 0 1700 45 28 1043 809 807 RAINWOOD RD COLLECTOR 2629 1 12 0 1700 45 28 1044 810 808 RAINWOOD RD COLLECTOR 2504 1 12 0 1700 45 28 1045 811 69 I 680 FREEWAY 1113 2 12 8 2250 70 32 1046 811 70 I 680 FREEWAY 296 3 12 8 2250 70 32 1047 812 638 145TH ST COLLECTOR 3746 1 12 0 1700 50 24 1048 813 651 145TH ST COLLECTOR 3605 1 12 0 1700 50 24 1049 814 650 145TH ST COLLECTOR 575 1 12 0 1575 35 24 1050 815 267 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 5761 1 12 0 1700 50 26 1051 815 268 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 996 1 12 0 1575 35 26 1052 816 264 CR 17 COLLECTOR 3810 1 12 0 1700 50 31 1053 816 276 N 144TH ST COLLECTOR 3771 1 12 0 1700 50 31 1054 816 357 CR 17 COLLECTOR 7896 1 12 0 1700 50 31 1055 817 280 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 778 1 12 0 1350 30 31 1056 817 281 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 2784 1 12 0 1700 45 31 1057 818 286 N 108TH ST COLLECTOR 1475 1 12 0 1700 45 32 1058 819 284 N 114TH ST COLLECTOR 5302 1 12 0 1700 50 32 1059 819 290 CR 17 COLLECTOR 2584 1 12 0 1700 50 32 1060 819 296 CR 17 COLLECTOR 3030 1 12 0 1700 50 32 1061 820 585 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 1080 1 12 0 1700 55 11 1062 820 589 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 6582 1 12 0 1700 55 11 373 289 797 FORT ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 3216 2 12 0 1900 45 32 374 290 288 N 120TH ST COLLECTOR 6181 1 12 0 1700 50 32 375 290 357 CR 17 COLLECTOR 2701 1 12 0 1700 50 31 376 290 819 CR 17 COLLECTOR 2584 1 12 0 1700 50 32 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K57 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number EXIT LINK 291 8291 N 132ND ST COLLECTOR 396 1 12 0 1700 45 31 298 247 200 CR 15 COLLECTOR 10004 1 12 0 1700 60 20 299 247 246 CR 15 COLLECTOR 371 1 12 0 1700 60 20 300 248 249 CR 15 LOCAL ROADWAY 933 1 12 0 1700 40 20 301 249 250 CR 15 LOCAL ROADWAY 1091 1 12 0 1700 40 20 302 250 253 CR 15 LOCAL ROADWAY 1854 1 12 0 1700 40 20 303 251 230 SR 31 COLLECTOR 7719 1 12 4 1700 60 21 304 252 254 CR 15 LOCAL ROADWAY 7053 1 12 0 1700 40 20 305 253 252 CR 15 LOCAL ROADWAY 1164 1 12 0 1700 40 20 306 254 238 CR 15 LOCAL ROADWAY 1746 1 12 0 1700 40 25 307 255 256 CR 19 COLLECTOR 1136 1 12 0 1700 50 20 308 256 257 CR 84 COLLECTOR 1013 1 12 0 1700 50 21 309 257 239 CR 84 COLLECTOR 4411 1 12 0 1700 50 26 EXIT LINK 258 8258 SR 36 COLLECTOR 1109 1 12 6 1700 60 25 310 259 241 BENNINGTON RD COLLECTOR 9078 1 12 0 1700 55 26 311 259 261 SR 31 COLLECTOR 10506 1 12 4 1700 60 26 312 260 259 BENNINGTON RD COLLECTOR 825 1 12 0 1700 50 26 313 260 269 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 7573 1 12 0 1700 45 26 314 261 262 SR 31 COLLECTOR 753 1 12 4 1700 60 26 EXIT LINK 262 8262 SR 31 COLLECTOR 827 1 12 4 1700 60 26 315 263 274 N 156TH ST COLLECTOR 5251 1 12 0 1700 50 31 316 263 338 CR 17 COLLECTOR 5184 1 12 0 1700 50 26 317 264 263 CR 17 COLLECTOR 1639 1 12 0 1700 50 31 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K58 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 318 264 276 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 5310 1 12 0 1700 45 31 319 264 816 CR 17 COLLECTOR 3810 1 12 0 1700 50 31 320 265 263 N 156TH ST COLLECTOR 2478 1 12 0 1700 50 26 321 265 264 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 2930 1 12 0 1700 45 31 322 265 266 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 2108 1 12 0 1700 40 26 323 266 265 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 2108 1 12 0 1700 40 26 324 266 336 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 3798 1 12 0 1700 45 26 325 267 336 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 929 1 12 0 1575 35 26 326 267 815 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 5761 1 12 0 1700 50 26 327 268 269 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 1388 1 12 0 1700 45 26 328 268 815 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 1010 1 12 0 1575 35 26 329 269 260 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 7573 1 12 0 1700 45 26 330 269 268 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 1388 1 12 0 1700 45 26 331 270 804 BENNINGTON RD COLLECTOR 1538 1 12 0 1575 35 26 332 270 806 N 156TH ST COLLECTOR 2651 1 12 0 1575 35 26 333 271 270 N 156TH ST COLLECTOR 2791 1 12 0 1575 35 26 334 271 272 SR 36 COLLECTOR 2876 1 12 8 1700 60 26 335 271 329 SR 36 COLLECTOR 11992 1 12 8 1700 60 27 336 272 232 SR 36 COLLECTOR 3000 1 12 8 1700 60 26 337 272 271 SR 36 COLLECTOR 2908 1 12 8 1700 60 26 338 274 278 N 156TH ST COLLECTOR 5254 1 12 0 1700 50 31 339 274 337 IDA ST COLLECTOR 5211 1 12 4 1700 45 26 340 275 274 IDA ST COLLECTOR 5237 1 12 4 1700 45 31 341 275 277 N 144TH ST COLLECTOR 5257 1 12 0 1700 50 31 342 275 280 IDA ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1779 1 12 0 1700 45 31 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K59 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 343 276 275 N 144TH ST COLLECTOR 1479 1 12 0 1700 50 31 344 277 278 FORT ST COLLECTOR 5277 1 12 0 1700 45 31 345 277 305 N 144TH ST COLLECTOR 872 1 12 0 1700 50 31 346 278 304 N 156TH ST COLLECTOR 436 1 12 0 1700 50 31 347 279 291 N 132ND ST COLLECTOR 1150 1 12 0 1700 45 31 348 279 766 FORT ST COLLECTOR 4277 1 12 0 1700 45 31 349 279 801 FORT ST COLLECTOR 2964 1 12 0 1700 45 31 350 280 275 IDA ST COLLECTOR 1779 1 12 0 1700 45 31 351 280 817 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 773 1 12 0 1350 30 31 352 281 279 N 132ND ST COLLECTOR 5325 1 12 0 1700 45 31 353 281 288 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 5347 1 12 0 1700 45 31 354 281 817 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 2783 1 12 0 1700 45 31 355 282 284 IDA ST COLLECTOR 2559 1 12 0 1700 45 32 356 282 298 IDA ST COLLECTOR 1637 1 12 0 1700 45 32 357 282 818 N 108TH ST COLLECTOR 1160 1 12 0 1700 45 32 358 284 282 IDA ST COLLECTOR 2559 1 12 0 1700 45 32 359 284 285 IDA ST COLLECTOR 1533 1 12 0 1700 45 32 360 285 284 IDA ST COLLECTOR 1533 1 12 0 1700 45 32 361 285 288 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 1562 1 12 0 1700 45 32 362 285 818 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 3686 1 12 0 1700 45 32 363 286 300 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 3929 1 12 0 1575 35 32 364 286 796 N 108TH ST COLLECTOR 1739 1 12 0 1700 45 32 365 287 293 N 108TH ST COLLECTOR 1856 2 12 0 1900 45 32 366 287 793 FORT ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 2178 2 12 0 1900 45 32 367 287 797 FORT ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 2099 2 12 0 1900 45 32 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K60 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 368 288 281 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 5347 1 12 0 1700 45 31 369 288 285 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 1562 1 12 0 1700 45 32 370 288 800 N 120TH ST COLLECTOR 3569 1 12 0 1700 50 32 371 289 292 N 120TH ST COLLECTOR 1543 2 12 0 1900 50 32 372 289 766 FORT ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 874 2 12 0 1900 45 31 523 378 377 GIRARD ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1005 1 12 0 1575 35 33 524 379 377 GIRARD ST LOCAL ROADWAY 878 1 12 0 1575 35 33 525 380 739 N 60TH ST COLLECTOR 1192 1 12 0 1700 45 33 526 381 741 SORENSON PKWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 1280 2 12 0 1900 50 33 527 385 386 SORENSON PKWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 1688 2 12 0 1900 45 33 528 386 736 SORENSON PKWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 2484 2 12 0 1900 45 33 529 386 791 N 52ND ST COLLECTOR 486 1 12 0 1700 40 33 530 387 388 HARTMAN AVE COLLECTOR 499 1 12 0 1700 40 33 EXIT LINK 388 8388 HARTMAN AVE COLLECTOR 401 1 12 0 1700 40 33 EXIT LINK 389 8389 N 60TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 399 2 12 0 1900 45 33 531 390 385 MORMON BRIDGE RD COLLECTOR 1140 1 12 0 1700 45 33 532 391 390 MORMON BRIDGE RD COLLECTOR 1387 1 12 0 1700 45 33 533 392 391 MORMON BRIDGE RD COLLECTOR 1695 1 12 0 1700 45 33 534 393 394 MORMON BRIDGE RD COLLECTOR 1650 1 12 0 1700 45 33 535 393 411 YOUNG ST COLLECTOR 4240 1 12 0 1700 45 34 536 393 788 MORMON BRIDGE RD COLLECTOR 989 1 12 0 1700 45 33 537 394 393 MORMON BRIDGE RD COLLECTOR 1654 1 12 0 1700 45 33 538 394 719 MORMON BRIDGE RD COLLECTOR 3047 1 12 0 1700 45 29 539 395 731 NORTH FWY FREEWAY 244 2 12 8 2250 70 34 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K61 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number EXIT LINK 396 8396 NORTH FWY FREEWAY 599 2 12 8 2250 70 34 540 397 398 SORENSON PKWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 3043 2 12 0 1900 50 34 541 398 726 SORENSON PKWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 1347 2 12 0 1900 50 34 542 399 400 SORENSON PKWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 2291 2 12 0 1900 45 34 543 400 397 SORENSON PKWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 1527 2 12 0 1900 50 34 544 401 397 FONTENELLE BLVD COLLECTOR 746 1 12 0 1700 45 34 545 402 404 US 75 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1101 2 12 0 1900 40 34 546 402 407 US 75 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1641 2 12 0 1900 40 34 547 403 402 MARTIN AVE COLLECTOR 1095 1 12 0 1700 40 34 548 404 721 US 75 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1359 2 12 0 1900 40 34 549 405 733 US 75 MAJOR ARTERIAL 434 2 12 0 1900 40 34 550 406 386 CURTIS AVE COLLECTOR 1504 1 12 0 1700 45 33 551 407 402 US 75 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1641 2 12 0 1900 40 34 552 407 409 US 75 MAJOR ARTERIAL 2111 2 12 0 1900 40 34 553 408 409 US 75 MAJOR ARTERIAL 709 2 12 0 1900 40 30 554 408 410 US 75 MAJOR ARTERIAL 661 2 12 0 1900 40 30 555 408 414 STATE ST COLLECTOR 2618 1 12 0 1350 30 30 556 409 407 US 75 MAJOR ARTERIAL 2111 2 12 0 1900 40 34 557 409 408 US 75 MAJOR ARTERIAL 709 2 12 0 1900 40 30 558 410 408 US 75 MAJOR ARTERIAL 661 2 12 0 1900 40 30 559 410 423 US 75 MAJOR ARTERIAL 2003 2 12 0 1900 40 30 560 411 393 YOUNG ST COLLECTOR 4240 1 12 0 1700 45 34 561 411 412 YOUNG ST COLLECTOR 558 1 12 0 1350 30 34 562 412 411 YOUNG ST COLLECTOR 555 1 12 0 1350 30 34 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K62 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 563 412 413 YOUNG ST COLLECTOR 974 1 12 0 1350 30 34 564 413 412 YOUNG ST COLLECTOR 979 1 12 0 1350 30 34 565 413 414 STATE ST COLLECTOR 818 1 12 0 1575 35 34 566 414 408 STATE ST COLLECTOR 2618 1 12 0 1350 30 30 567 414 413 STATE ST COLLECTOR 818 1 12 0 1575 35 34 568 415 414 N 36TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1005 1 12 0 1575 35 30 569 416 414 N 36TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1415 1 12 0 1575 35 34 570 417 407 HISTORY TAYLOR LOCAL ROADWAY 1281 1 12 0 1350 30 34 571 418 407 POTTER ST LOCAL ROADWAY 785 1 12 0 1350 30 34 572 419 409 GREBE ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1022 1 12 0 1350 30 34 573 420 409 GREBE ST LOCAL ROADWAY 821 1 12 0 1350 30 34 574 423 410 US 75 MAJOR ARTERIAL 2004 2 12 0 1900 40 30 575 423 424 N 31ST ST COLLECTOR 366 2 12 0 1900 40 30 576 424 58 I 680 US 75 RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 1115 1 12 0 1700 45 30 577 424 423 N 31ST ST COLLECTOR 366 2 12 0 1900 40 30 578 424 439 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 472 1 12 0 1700 40 30 579 425 426 DICK COLLINS RD COLLECTOR 645 1 12 0 1575 35 30 580 426 720 DICK COLLINS RD COLLECTOR 514 1 12 0 1350 30 30 581 427 425 JOHN J PERSHING DR COLLECTOR 2036 1 12 0 1700 45 30 582 428 429 N 47TH ST COLLECTOR 383 1 12 0 1575 35 29 583 428 430 CALHOUN RD COLLECTOR 240 1 12 0 1575 35 29 584 429 428 N 47TH ST COLLECTOR 382 1 12 0 1575 35 29 585 429 446 US 75 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1718 2 12 0 1900 55 29 586 430 428 CALHOUN RD COLLECTOR 240 1 12 0 1575 35 29 587 430 431 CALHOUN RD COLLECTOR 1693 1 12 0 1700 45 30 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K63 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 588 431 432 CALHOUN RD COLLECTOR 2260 1 12 0 1700 45 30 589 432 433 CALHOUN RD COLLECTOR 1157 1 12 0 1700 45 30 590 433 434 CALHOUN RD COLLECTOR 1111 1 12 0 1700 45 30 591 434 435 CALHOUN RD COLLECTOR 3437 1 12 0 1700 45 30 592 435 436 CALHOUN RD COLLECTOR 477 1 12 0 1350 30 30 593 436 439 N 31ST ST COLLECTOR 301 2 12 0 1900 40 30 594 437 427 JOHN J PERSHING DR COLLECTOR 3454 1 12 0 1700 45 30 595 438 437 OAKRIDGE RD LOCAL ROADWAY 667 1 12 0 1350 30 30 596 439 59 I 680 US 75 RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 1594 1 12 0 1700 45 30 597 439 424 US 75 MAJOR ARTERIAL 472 2 12 0 1900 40 30 598 440 62 I 680 US 75 RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 1850 1 12 0 1700 45 29 599 440 441 US 75 MAJOR ARTERIAL 602 2 12 0 1900 55 30 600 441 61 I 680 US 75 RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 1335 1 12 0 1700 45 30 601 441 440 US 75 MAJOR ARTERIAL 602 1 12 0 1700 55 30 602 441 442 US 75 MAJOR ARTERIAL 932 2 12 0 1900 50 30 603 442 423 US 75 COLLECTOR 5211 2 12 0 1900 50 30 604 442 441 US 75 MAJOR ARTERIAL 932 2 12 0 1900 45 30 605 442 719 MORMON BRIDGE RD COLLECTOR 351 1 12 6 1700 45 30 606 443 442 SR 36 COLLECTOR 2755 3 12 0 1900 50 29 607 444 326 N 60TH ST COLLECTOR 6396 1 12 0 1700 50 29 608 444 718 SR 36 COLLECTOR 3549 1 12 0 1700 60 29 609 445 440 US 75 MAJOR ARTERIAL 3583 2 12 0 1900 55 30 610 446 445 US 75 MAJOR ARTERIAL 2016 2 12 0 1900 55 29 611 447 443 N 52ND AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 850 1 12 0 1700 40 29 612 448 326 WILLIT ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1055 1 12 0 1575 35 33 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K64 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 613 449 455 PONCA RD COLLECTOR 1697 1 12 0 1700 40 30 614 450 449 PONCA RD COLLECTOR 1109 1 12 0 1700 40 30 615 451 450 PONCA RD COLLECTOR 1967 1 12 0 1700 40 30 616 452 451 PONCA RD COLLECTOR 1734 1 12 0 1700 40 30 617 453 452 PONCA RD COLLECTOR 1415 1 12 0 1575 35 30 618 454 437 JOHN J PERSHING DR COLLECTOR 5818 1 12 0 1700 45 30 619 454 453 PONCA RD COLLECTOR 765 1 12 0 1700 40 30 666 499 500 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 2428 1 12 8 1700 60 23 667 500 501 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 1931 1 12 8 1700 60 23 668 501 502 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 2517 1 12 8 1700 60 23 669 502 503 US 75 MAJOR ARTERIAL 3808 2 12 0 1900 60 23 670 503 504 US 75 MAJOR ARTERIAL 4743 2 12 0 1900 60 29 671 504 429 US 75 MAJOR ARTERIAL 2616 2 12 0 1900 60 29 672 505 82 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1325 2 12 0 1900 35 16 673 505 708 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 445 2 12 0 1900 35 16 674 506 211 SOUTH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1327 1 12 0 1575 35 16 675 506 306 SOUTH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1353 1 12 0 1350 30 16 676 506 505 S 16TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1435 1 12 0 1575 35 16 677 507 211 SOUTH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1301 1 12 0 1575 35 16 678 509 82 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1277 2 12 0 1900 35 16 679 509 83 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 2719 2 12 0 1900 50 16 680 511 73 NEBRASKA ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1384 1 12 0 1575 35 16 681 511 505 N 16TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1129 1 12 0 1575 35 16 682 512 710 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 474 2 12 0 1900 45 15 683 513 512 DEERFIELD BLVD COLLECTOR 722 1 12 0 1575 35 15 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K65 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 684 514 512 23RD AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 647 1 12 0 1350 30 15 685 515 74 N 18TH AVE COLLECTOR 611 1 12 0 1575 35 16 686 516 74 WRIGHT ST COLLECTOR 1543 1 12 0 1575 35 16 687 516 158 N 23RD ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2220 1 12 0 1575 35 15 688 517 516 COLLEGE DR COLLECTOR 341 1 12 0 1575 35 15 689 518 506 S 16TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1046 1 12 0 1575 35 16 690 521 509 N 10TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1166 1 12 0 1575 35 16 691 521 511 NEBRASKA ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2537 1 12 0 1575 35 16 692 522 521 N 10TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1401 1 12 0 1575 35 16 693 523 524 CR P38 COLLECTOR 2722 1 12 0 1700 50 23 694 524 525 CR P38 COLLECTOR 5045 1 12 0 1700 50 23 695 524 533 CR 49 COLLECTOR 8164 1 12 0 1700 45 23 696 525 526 CR P38 COLLECTOR 357 1 12 0 900 20 23 697 526 527 CR 51 COLLECTOR 3492 1 12 0 1575 35 23 698 527 528 CR 40 LOCAL ROADWAY 475 1 12 0 1350 30 23 699 528 529 CR 40 LOCAL ROADWAY 1040 1 12 0 1700 40 23 700 529 530 CR 40 LOCAL ROADWAY 1263 1 12 0 1700 40 23 701 530 531 CR 40 LOCAL ROADWAY 1614 1 12 0 1700 40 23 702 531 532 CR 40 LOCAL ROADWAY 2111 1 12 0 1700 40 23 703 532 538 N RIVER RD COLLECTOR 1613 1 12 0 1700 45 23 704 533 534 N 47TH ST COLLECTOR 568 1 12 0 1700 40 23 705 534 535 N 47TH ST COLLECTOR 1151 1 12 0 1700 40 23 706 535 449 N 47TH ST COLLECTOR 4972 1 12 0 1700 40 23 707 536 454 N RIVER RD COLLECTOR 647 1 12 0 1700 40 30 708 537 536 N RIVER RD COLLECTOR 5985 1 12 0 1700 45 23 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K66 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 709 538 537 N RIVER RD COLLECTOR 955 1 12 0 1575 35 23 710 539 6 I 29 SR 127 FREEWAY RAMP 1504 1 12 4 1700 45 4 711 540 539 SR 127 COLLECTOR 1303 1 12 6 1700 60 4 712 540 700 I 29 SR 127 FREEWAY RAMP 1589 1 12 4 1700 45 4 713 541 540 SR 127 COLLECTOR 3025 1 12 6 1700 60 4 714 541 542 SR 127 COLLECTOR 5168 1 12 0 1700 40 4 715 541 545 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 8683 1 12 0 1700 55 4 716 542 541 SR 127 COLLECTOR 5158 1 12 0 1700 40 4 717 542 543 SR 127 COLLECTOR 12910 1 12 6 1700 60 5 718 543 542 SR 127 COLLECTOR 12910 1 12 6 1700 60 5 719 543 544 SR 127 COLLECTOR 7371 1 12 4 1700 55 5 720 543 546 SR 183 COLLECTOR 4219 1 12 6 1700 60 5 721 544 543 SR 127 COLLECTOR 7364 1 12 4 1700 55 5 722 544 556 SR 127 COLLECTOR 12205 1 12 0 1700 60 5 EXIT LINK 545 8545 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 747 1 12 0 1700 55 1 EXIT LINK 546 8546 SR 183 COLLECTOR 923 1 12 6 1700 60 5 723 547 574 SR 127 COLLECTOR 4361 1 12 0 1700 45 6 724 549 547 L23 COLLECTOR 726 1 10 0 1700 40 6 725 550 549 L23 COLLECTOR 554 1 10 0 1700 40 6 726 551 550 L23 COLLECTOR 509 1 10 0 1350 30 6 727 552 551 L23 COLLECTOR 1755 1 10 0 1700 40 6 728 553 552 L23 COLLECTOR 851 1 10 0 1700 40 6 729 554 547 L23 COLLECTOR 985 1 10 0 1700 40 6 730 555 554 SR 127 COLLECTOR 2384 1 12 0 1700 55 6 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K67 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 731 556 555 SR 127 COLLECTOR 3621 1 12 0 1700 55 6 732 557 553 L23 COLLECTOR 8107 1 10 0 1700 40 6 733 558 557 L23 COLLECTOR 4080 1 10 0 1700 40 6 734 559 558 L23 COLLECTOR 1737 1 10 0 1700 40 6 735 560 559 L23 COLLECTOR 1014 1 10 0 1350 30 6 736 561 560 L23 COLLECTOR 948 1 10 0 1350 30 6 737 562 561 L23 COLLECTOR 2073 1 10 0 1700 40 6 738 563 562 L23 COLLECTOR 3615 1 10 0 1700 40 12 739 563 572 F50 COLLECTOR 15011 1 12 0 1700 55 12 740 564 544 L20 COLLECTOR 3279 1 12 4 1700 60 5 741 565 564 L20 COLLECTOR 8543 1 12 4 1700 60 5 742 566 565 L20 COLLECTOR 3366 1 12 4 1700 60 5 743 567 566 L20 COLLECTOR 4213 1 12 4 1700 60 5 744 568 567 L20 COLLECTOR 4261 1 12 4 1700 60 5 745 569 563 L23 COLLECTOR 879 1 12 0 1700 45 12 746 569 568 L20 COLLECTOR 6413 1 12 4 1700 60 12 747 569 571 L20 COLLECTOR 4513 1 12 4 1700 60 12 748 570 571 L20 COLLECTOR 3299 1 12 4 1700 60 12 749 571 569 L20 COLLECTOR 4513 1 12 4 1700 60 12 750 571 588 F50 COLLECTOR 22799 1 12 0 1700 55 11 751 572 573 F50 COLLECTOR 3236 1 12 0 1700 55 12 752 573 581 F50 COLLECTOR 8903 1 12 0 1700 55 6 753 574 575 SR 127 COLLECTOR 4901 1 12 0 1700 60 6 754 575 576 SR 127 COLLECTOR 5451 1 12 0 1700 60 6 755 576 583 SR 127 COLLECTOR 2677 1 12 0 1700 60 6 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K68 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 756 577 578 SR 127 COLLECTOR 3832 1 12 0 1575 35 7 757 578 582 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 853 1 12 0 1575 35 7 758 579 578 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 723 1 12 0 1575 35 7 759 580 579 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1579 1 12 0 1575 35 6 760 581 580 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1508 1 12 4 1700 50 6 EXIT LINK 582 8582 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 879 1 12 0 1575 35 7 761 583 584 SR 127 COLLECTOR 6932 1 12 0 1700 60 6 762 584 577 SR 127 COLLECTOR 7266 1 12 0 1700 50 6 763 585 586 IA 300 COLLECTOR 5987 1 12 0 1700 55 11 764 585 820 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 1081 1 12 0 1700 55 11 765 585 821 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 1268 1 12 0 1700 55 11 766 586 10 I 29 270TH ST RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 1573 1 12 4 1700 45 11 767 586 587 IA 300 COLLECTOR 1272 1 12 0 1700 55 11 768 587 9 I 29 270TH ST RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 1869 1 12 4 1700 45 11 769 587 586 IA 300 COLLECTOR 1272 1 12 0 1700 55 11 770 587 588 F50 COLLECTOR 2249 1 12 0 1700 55 11 771 588 571 F50 COLLECTOR 22799 1 12 0 1700 55 11 772 588 587 F50 COLLECTOR 2195 1 12 0 1700 55 11 773 589 590 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 3390 1 12 0 1700 55 5 774 589 820 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 6583 1 12 0 1700 55 11 775 590 591 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 6539 1 12 0 1700 55 5 776 591 592 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 1381 1 12 0 1700 55 5 777 592 593 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 941 1 12 0 1700 55 4 778 593 594 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 1768 1 12 0 1700 55 4 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K69 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 779 594 595 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 1785 1 12 0 1700 55 4 780 595 596 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 939 1 12 0 1700 55 4 781 596 597 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 2113 1 12 0 1700 55 4 782 597 541 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 9937 1 12 0 1700 55 4 783 598 599 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 1553 1 12 0 1700 55 11 784 598 821 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 3701 1 12 0 1700 55 11 785 599 598 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 1527 1 12 0 1700 55 11 786 599 600 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 2693 1 12 0 1700 55 11 787 600 599 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 2703 1 12 0 1700 55 11 788 600 601 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 4123 1 12 0 1700 55 11 789 601 600 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 4135 1 12 0 1700 55 11 790 601 602 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 1899 1 12 0 1700 55 11 791 602 601 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 1899 1 12 0 1700 55 11 792 602 603 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 5489 1 12 0 1700 55 10 793 603 602 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 5489 1 12 0 1700 55 10 794 603 604 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 2111 1 12 0 1700 55 10 795 604 603 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 2111 1 12 0 1700 55 10 796 604 605 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 4814 1 12 0 1700 55 10 797 605 604 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 4814 1 12 0 1700 55 10 798 605 673 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 2030 1 12 4 1700 60 16 799 606 607 DESOTO AVE COLLECTOR 15396 1 12 0 1700 40 17 800 607 608 DESOTO AVE COLLECTOR 2643 1 12 0 1700 40 17 801 608 609 DESOTO AVE COLLECTOR 3738 1 12 0 1700 40 18 802 609 19 I 29 DESOTO AVE RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 1535 1 12 0 1700 45 18 803 609 610 DESOTO AVE COLLECTOR 1336 1 12 0 1700 40 18 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K70 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 804 610 18 I 29 DESOTO AVE RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 1791 1 12 0 1700 45 18 805 610 609 DESOTO AVE COLLECTOR 1336 1 12 0 1700 40 18 806 610 611 DESOTO AVE COLLECTOR 1557 1 12 0 1700 40 18 807 611 610 DESOTO AVE COLLECTOR 1557 1 12 0 1700 40 18 808 611 627 OLD LINCOLN HWY COLLECTOR 990 1 12 4 1700 55 18 809 611 630 OLD LINCOLN HWY COLLECTOR 23063 1 12 4 1700 60 18 810 612 613 F58 COLLECTOR 2447 1 12 0 1700 55 12 811 613 614 F58 COLLECTOR 4172 1 12 0 1700 55 12 812 614 615 F58 COLLECTOR 6835 1 12 0 1700 55 12 EXIT LINK 615 8615 F58 COLLECTOR 768 1 12 0 1700 55 13 813 616 617 L 20 COLLECTOR 216 1 12 0 1350 30 12 814 616 618 L 20 COLLECTOR 1076 1 12 0 1350 30 12 815 617 619 L20 COLLECTOR 3052 1 12 0 1350 30 12 816 618 90 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1929 1 12 0 1700 45 12 817 618 616 L 20 COLLECTOR 1077 1 12 0 1350 30 12 818 618 621 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1877 1 12 0 1575 35 12 819 619 620 L20 COLLECTOR 6701 1 12 4 1700 60 12 820 620 570 L20 COLLECTOR 8055 1 12 4 1700 65 12 821 621 91 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1035 1 12 0 1575 35 12 822 621 618 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1877 1 12 0 1575 35 12 823 621 622 S 6TH ST COLLECTOR 2367 1 12 0 1350 30 12 824 622 100 CR F 66 COLLECTOR 3418 1 12 0 1700 45 18 825 622 621 S 6TH ST COLLECTOR 2367 1 12 0 1350 30 12 826 622 623 OLD LINCOLN HWY COLLECTOR 2294 1 12 4 1700 45 18 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K71 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 827 623 622 OLD LINCOLN HWY COLLECTOR 2294 1 12 4 1700 45 18 828 623 624 OLD LINCOLN HWY COLLECTOR 3637 1 12 4 1700 55 18 829 624 623 OLD LINCOLN HWY COLLECTOR 3637 1 12 4 1700 55 18 830 624 625 OLD LINCOLN HWY COLLECTOR 4009 1 12 4 1700 55 18 EXIT LINK 292 8292 N 120TH ST COLLECTOR 440 2 12 0 1900 50 32 EXIT LINK 293 8293 N 108TH ST COLLECTOR 382 2 12 0 1900 45 32 377 294 68 I 680 SR 133 RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 1514 1 12 0 1700 45 32 378 294 295 SR 133 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1017 2 12 0 1900 50 32 379 295 67 I 680 SR 133 RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 1645 1 12 0 1700 45 32 380 295 294 SR 133 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1017 1 12 0 1700 50 32 381 295 299 SR 133 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1128 2 12 0 1900 50 32 382 296 297 SR 133 MAJOR ARTERIAL 4437 2 12 0 1900 55 32 383 296 310 CR 17 COLLECTOR 866 1 12 0 1700 50 32 384 296 819 CR 17 COLLECTOR 3030 1 12 0 1700 50 32 385 297 294 SR 133 MAJOR ARTERIAL 876 2 12 0 1900 50 32 386 297 298 IDA ST COLLECTOR 1778 1 12 0 1700 40 32 387 298 282 IDA ST COLLECTOR 1637 1 12 0 1700 45 32 388 298 297 IDA ST COLLECTOR 1766 1 12 0 1700 40 32 389 299 295 SR 133 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1128 2 12 0 1900 50 32 390 299 340 SR 133 MAJOR ARTERIAL 3991 2 12 0 1900 50 32 391 299 764 N 99TH ST COLLECTOR 730 1 12 0 1575 35 32 392 300 286 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 3929 1 12 0 1575 35 32 393 300 301 N 99TH ST COLLECTOR 2591 1 12 0 1575 35 32 394 300 349 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 2070 1 12 0 1575 35 32 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K72 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 395 301 302 FORT ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 651 2 12 0 1900 45 32 396 301 348 FORT ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 3960 2 12 0 1900 45 32 397 302 69 I 680 FORT ST RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 796 1 12 0 1700 45 32 398 302 301 FORT ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 651 2 12 0 1900 45 32 399 302 303 FORT ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 844 2 12 0 1900 45 32 400 303 70 I 680 FORT ST RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 737 1 12 0 1700 45 32 401 303 302 FORT ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 844 2 12 0 1900 45 32 402 303 793 FORT ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 340 2 12 0 1900 45 32 EXIT LINK 304 8304 N 156TH ST COLLECTOR 542 1 12 0 1700 50 31 EXIT LINK 305 8305 N 144TH ST COLLECTOR 453 1 12 0 1700 50 31 403 306 82 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 1464 2 12 0 1900 45 16 404 307 306 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 1001 2 12 0 1900 45 16 405 308 307 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 3183 2 12 0 1900 50 16 406 309 346 IRVINGTON RD COLLECTOR 1814 1 12 0 1575 35 32 407 309 353 IDA ST COLLECTOR 2165 1 12 0 1700 40 32 408 309 759 IDA ST COLLECTOR 1360 1 12 0 1700 40 32 409 310 296 CR 17 COLLECTOR 866 1 12 0 1700 50 32 410 310 311 IRVINGTON RD COLLECTOR 1182 1 12 0 1575 35 32 411 310 322 CR 17 COLLECTOR 7156 1 12 0 1700 50 32 412 311 309 IRVINGTON RD COLLECTOR 6885 1 12 0 1700 45 32 413 312 313 SR 36 COLLECTOR 3649 1 12 0 1700 60 28 414 312 456 SR 36 COLLECTOR 15750 1 12 0 1700 60 28 415 312 807 N 108TH ST COLLECTOR 5258 1 12 4 1700 50 28 416 313 715 SR 36 COLLECTOR 1588 1 12 0 1700 60 28 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K73 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 417 313 716 SR 36 COLLECTOR 405 2 12 0 1900 60 28 418 313 808 SR 133 MAJOR ARTERIAL 5556 2 12 8 1900 60 28 419 314 310 N 108TH ST COLLECTOR 839 1 12 0 1700 40 32 420 315 314 N 108TH ST COLLECTOR 2600 1 12 0 1700 45 28 421 316 296 SR 133 MAJOR ARTERIAL 3995 2 12 8 1900 55 28 422 317 65 I 680 N 72ND ST RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 1171 1 12 0 1700 45 29 423 317 318 N 72ND ST COLLECTOR 1057 2 12 0 1900 50 29 424 318 64 I 680 N 72ND ST RAMPS FREEWAY RAMP 1365 1 12 0 1700 45 29 425 318 325 N 72ND ST COLLECTOR 1578 2 12 0 1900 50 29 426 319 317 N 72ND ST COLLECTOR 521 2 12 0 1900 50 29 427 319 320 CR 17 COLLECTOR 1860 1 12 0 1700 45 29 428 320 319 CR 17 COLLECTOR 1860 1 12 0 1700 45 29 429 320 321 CR 17 COLLECTOR 4366 1 12 0 1700 45 29 430 321 320 CR 17 COLLECTOR 4366 1 12 0 1700 45 29 431 321 322 CR 17 COLLECTOR 1975 1 12 0 1700 45 32 432 322 310 CR 17 COLLECTOR 7156 1 12 0 1700 50 32 433 322 321 CR 17 COLLECTOR 1975 1 12 0 1700 45 32 434 322 323 WENNINGHOFF RD COLLECTOR 1370 1 12 0 1700 45 32 435 323 324 STATE ST COLLECTOR 3260 1 12 0 1700 45 32 436 323 754 WENNINGHOFF RD COLLECTOR 942 1 12 0 1700 40 32 437 324 323 STATE ST COLLECTOR 3260 1 12 0 1700 45 32 438 324 746 STATE ST COLLECTOR 1527 1 12 0 1700 45 33 439 325 326 STATE ST COLLECTOR 5285 1 12 0 1700 45 33 440 325 377 N 72ND ST COLLECTOR 3910 2 12 0 1900 50 33 441 325 746 STATE ST COLLECTOR 2611 1 12 0 1700 45 33 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K74 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 442 326 325 STATE ST COLLECTOR 5285 1 12 0 1700 45 33 443 326 787 N 60TH ST COLLECTOR 1287 1 12 0 1700 45 33 444 327 328 SR 36 COLLECTOR 2161 2 12 0 1900 60 27 445 327 330 BENNINGTON RD COLLECTOR 419 1 12 0 900 20 27 446 327 715 SR 36 COLLECTOR 401 1 12 0 1700 60 27 447 328 327 SR 36 COLLECTOR 2171 1 12 8 1700 60 27 448 328 329 SR 36 COLLECTOR 2539 2 12 0 1900 60 27 449 329 271 SR 36 COLLECTOR 11992 1 12 8 1700 60 27 450 329 328 SR 36 COLLECTOR 2551 1 12 8 1700 60 27 451 330 331 BENNINGTON RD COLLECTOR 4334 1 12 0 1700 55 27 452 331 332 BENNINGTON RD COLLECTOR 1509 1 12 0 1700 40 27 453 332 805 BENNINGTON RD COLLECTOR 6930 1 12 0 1700 55 27 454 333 231 SR 36 COLLECTOR 10318 1 12 8 1700 60 26 455 333 232 SR 36 COLLECTOR 5256 1 12 8 1700 60 26 456 334 333 CR 68 COLLECTOR 1051 1 12 0 1700 45 26 457 335 260 BENNINGTON RD COLLECTOR 14828 1 12 0 1700 50 26 458 335 336 N 168TH ST COLLECTOR 5623 1 12 0 1700 45 26 459 336 266 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 3798 1 12 0 1700 45 26 460 336 267 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 932 1 12 0 1575 35 26 461 336 338 N 168TH ST COLLECTOR 4900 1 12 0 1700 45 26 462 337 339 N 168TH ST COLLECTOR 2523 1 12 0 1700 45 26 463 338 261 CR 17 COLLECTOR 15662 1 12 0 1700 50 26 464 338 337 N 168TH ST COLLECTOR 5281 1 12 0 1700 45 26 EXIT LINK 339 8339 N 168TH ST COLLECTOR 555 1 12 0 1700 45 26 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K75 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 465 340 341 BLAIR HIGH RD MAJOR ARTERIAL 1430 2 12 0 1900 50 32 466 340 347 SR 133 MAJOR ARTERIAL 882 2 12 0 1900 45 32 467 341 342 BLAIR HIGH RD MAJOR ARTERIAL 525 2 12 0 1900 50 32 468 341 347 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 1339 1 12 0 1575 35 32 469 342 351 BLAIR HIGH RD MAJOR ARTERIAL 2830 2 12 0 1900 50 33 470 343 342 CROWN POINT AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 239 1 12 0 1700 45 32 471 344 343 WENNINGHOFF RD COLLECTOR 390 1 12 0 1350 30 32 472 345 344 WENNINGHOFF RD COLLECTOR 3349 1 12 0 1700 40 32 473 345 375 SORENSON PKWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 2855 2 12 0 1900 45 33 474 345 759 SORENSON PKWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 1917 2 12 0 1900 50 32 475 346 340 SORENSON PKWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 1246 2 12 0 1900 50 32 476 347 341 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 1358 1 12 0 1575 35 32 477 347 348 SR 133 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1550 2 12 0 1900 45 32 478 347 350 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 2069 1 12 0 1575 35 32 479 348 301 FORT ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 3960 2 12 0 1900 45 32 480 348 351 FORT ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 4048 2 12 0 1900 45 32 481 348 667 SR 133 MINOR ARTERIAL 1514 2 12 0 1900 45 32 482 349 300 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 2033 1 12 0 1575 35 32 483 349 762 MILIARY RD ROUNDABOUT LOCAL ROADWAY 106 1 12 0 900 20 32 484 350 347 MILITARY RD COLLECTOR 2081 1 12 0 1575 35 32 485 350 349 MILIARY RD ROUNDABOUT LOCAL ROADWAY 187 1 12 0 900 20 32 486 351 348 FORT ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 4048 2 12 0 1900 45 32 487 351 352 MILITARY AVE MAJOR ARTERIAL 1932 2 12 0 1900 50 33 488 352 768 SR 133 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1251 2 12 0 1900 50 33 489 353 299 IDA ST COLLECTOR 865 1 12 0 1700 40 32 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K76 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 490 354 751 WENNINGHOFF RD COLLECTOR 973 1 12 0 1700 40 32 491 356 345 WENNINGHOFF RD COLLECTOR 898 1 12 0 1700 45 32 492 357 290 CR 17 COLLECTOR 2701 1 12 0 1700 50 31 493 357 816 CR 17 COLLECTOR 7896 1 12 0 1700 50 31 494 358 357 N 126TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 630 1 12 0 1575 35 31 495 359 374 CROWN POINT AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1248 2 12 0 1900 45 33 496 359 779 CROWN POINT AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1112 2 12 0 1900 45 33 497 360 363 CROWN POINT AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 941 2 12 0 1900 45 33 498 360 372 N 72ND ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 3845 2 12 0 1900 50 33 499 361 381 SORENSON PKWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 2026 2 12 0 1900 50 33 500 361 738 SORENSON PKWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 1346 2 12 0 1900 45 33 501 361 773 N 72ND ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 646 2 12 0 1900 50 33 502 362 375 SORENSON PKWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 939 2 12 0 1900 45 33 503 362 738 SORENSON PKWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 665 2 12 0 1900 45 33 504 363 364 CROWN POINT AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 927 2 12 0 1900 45 33 505 364 771 HARTMAN AVE COLLECTOR 3187 1 12 0 1700 40 33 506 365 389 N 60TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 536 2 12 0 1900 45 33 507 365 770 HARTMAN AVE COLLECTOR 373 2 12 0 1900 40 33 508 366 365 N 60TH ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2691 2 12 0 1900 45 33 509 366 385 SORENSON PKWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 1385 2 12 0 1900 50 33 510 367 368 N 72ND ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 870 2 12 0 1900 50 33 511 367 369 SR 133 MAJOR ARTERIAL 953 2 12 0 1900 50 33 EXIT LINK 368 8368 N 72ND ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 493 2 12 0 1900 50 33 EXIT LINK 369 8369 SR 133 MAJOR ARTERIAL 618 2 12 0 1900 50 33 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K77 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 512 370 367 N 72ND ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 681 2 12 0 1900 50 33 513 371 370 AMES AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 814 2 12 0 1900 45 33 514 372 370 N 72ND ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 954 2 12 0 1900 50 33 515 373 372 MCDONALD'S DRIVEWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 786 1 12 0 1350 30 33 516 374 352 N 78TH ST COLLECTOR 3717 1 12 0 1700 45 33 517 374 359 CROWN POINT AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1248 2 12 0 1900 45 33 518 374 776 CROWN POINT AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1230 2 12 0 1900 45 33 519 375 345 SORENSON PKWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 2852 2 12 0 1900 45 33 520 375 362 SORENSON PKWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 939 2 12 0 1900 45 33 521 375 374 N 78TH ST COLLECTOR 3014 1 12 0 1700 45 33 522 377 361 N 72ND ST MAJOR ARTERIAL 1989 2 12 0 1900 50 33 620 455 430 PONCA RD COLLECTOR 1722 1 12 0 1700 40 30 621 456 312 SR 36 COLLECTOR 15750 1 12 0 1700 60 28 622 456 319 N 72ND ST COLLECTOR 7179 2 12 0 1900 50 29 623 456 444 SR 36 COLLECTOR 6668 1 12 0 1700 60 29 624 457 717 N 72ND ST COLLECTOR 9545 1 12 0 1700 50 29 625 458 457 N 72ND ST COLLECTOR 3584 1 12 0 1700 45 23 626 461 498 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 2223 1 12 8 1700 60 23 627 462 760 SR 133 MINOR ARTERIAL 5783 1 12 8 1700 60 28 628 463 462 SR 133 MINOR ARTERIAL 6067 1 12 8 1700 60 22 655 490 486 CR P35 COLLECTOR 722 1 12 0 1575 35 16 656 491 481 CR P35 COLLECTOR 6215 1 12 0 1700 45 16 657 492 494 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 5418 1 12 8 1700 60 16 658 492 675 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 7989 1 12 0 1700 55 16 659 493 492 POWER LN COLLECTOR 862 1 12 0 1575 35 16 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K78 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 660 494 495 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 15865 1 12 8 1700 60 16 661 495 468 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 4890 1 12 8 1700 40 23 662 496 497 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 4329 1 12 8 1700 50 23 663 497 461 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 9403 1 12 8 1700 60 23 664 498 499 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 2175 1 12 8 1700 50 23 665 498 523 CR P38 COLLECTOR 984 1 12 0 1700 40 23 1063 821 585 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 1265 1 12 0 1700 55 11 1064 821 598 AUSTIN AVE COLLECTOR 3698 1 12 0 1700 55 11 1065 8003 3 I 29 FREEWAY 2131 2 12 6 2250 70 1 1066 8033 33 I 29 FREEWAY 2002 2 12 6 2250 70 35 1067 8044 44 I 680 FREEWAY 1316 2 12 8 2250 70 19 227 159 160 SR 91 COLLECTOR 816 1 12 4 1575 35 15 228 160 161 SR 91 COLLECTOR 1428 1 12 4 1700 45 15 229 161 162 SR 91 COLLECTOR 1667 1 12 4 1700 45 15 230 162 163 SR 91 COLLECTOR 1661 1 12 4 1700 45 15 231 163 164 SR 91 COLLECTOR 4604 1 12 0 1700 55 15 232 164 165 SR 91 COLLECTOR 1934 1 12 0 1700 60 15 233 165 195 SR 91 COLLECTOR 1224 1 12 0 1700 60 15 234 166 205 SR 91 COLLECTOR 3237 1 12 0 1700 60 15 235 178 150 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 727 1 12 0 1575 35 3 236 194 76 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 8867 1 12 8 1700 60 9 237 195 157 SR 91 COLLECTOR 5293 1 12 0 1700 60 15 238 200 236 CR 15 COLLECTOR 20866 1 12 0 1700 60 14 239 200 247 CR 15 COLLECTOR 10004 1 12 0 1700 60 20 240 200 803 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 9500 1 12 4 1700 60 20 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K79 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number EXIT LINK 201 8201 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1757 1 12 4 1700 40 20 241 202 127 SR 91 COLLECTOR 13119 1 12 0 1700 60 14 242 203 202 SR 91 COLLECTOR 1813 1 12 0 1700 60 15 243 204 203 SR 91 COLLECTOR 2236 1 12 0 1700 60 15 244 205 204 SR 91 COLLECTOR 1591 1 12 0 1700 60 15 EXIT LINK 206 8206 SR 91 COLLECTOR 2142 1 12 0 1700 60 14 245 208 209 US 30 COLLECTOR 2459 2 12 0 1900 50 16 246 208 218 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 4529 1 12 4 1700 60 15 247 208 711 US 30 COLLECTOR 314 1 12 0 1700 45 16 248 209 208 US 30 COLLECTOR 2451 2 12 0 1900 50 16 249 209 210 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 3916 2 12 0 1900 50 16 250 210 209 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 3916 2 12 0 1900 50 16 629 464 463 SR 133 MINOR ARTERIAL 2820 1 12 8 1700 60 22 630 465 464 SR 133 MINOR ARTERIAL 4509 1 12 8 1700 60 22 631 466 465 SR 133 MINOR ARTERIAL 11434 1 12 8 1700 60 22 632 467 466 CR 34 COLLECTOR 4194 1 12 0 1575 35 22 633 468 496 US 75 MINOR ARTERIAL 1535 1 12 0 1350 30 23 634 469 468 CLAY ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2036 1 12 0 1575 35 23 635 470 469 CLAY ST LOCAL ROADWAY 774 1 12 0 1575 35 23 636 471 470 CR P32 COLLECTOR 1008 1 12 0 1575 35 22 637 472 471 CR P32 COLLECTOR 3359 1 12 0 1700 45 22 638 473 472 CR P32 COLLECTOR 5961 1 12 0 1700 45 22 639 474 473 CR P32 COLLECTOR 1597 1 12 0 1700 45 22 640 475 474 CR P32 COLLECTOR 1410 1 12 0 1700 45 22 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K80 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 641 476 475 CR P32 COLLECTOR 4637 1 12 0 1700 45 22 642 477 476 CR P32 COLLECTOR 786 1 12 0 1700 45 22 643 478 466 SR 133 MINOR ARTERIAL 5942 1 12 8 1700 60 22 644 479 477 CR P35 COLLECTOR 2935 1 12 0 1700 45 22 645 480 479 CR P35 COLLECTOR 1607 1 12 0 1700 45 16 646 481 480 CR P35 COLLECTOR 1464 1 12 0 1700 45 16 647 482 491 CR P35 COLLECTOR 664 1 12 0 1575 35 16 648 483 482 CR P35 COLLECTOR 1156 1 12 0 1700 45 16 649 484 483 CR P35 COLLECTOR 2085 1 12 0 1700 45 16 650 485 484 CR P35 COLLECTOR 1887 1 12 0 1575 35 16 651 485 490 CR P35 COLLECTOR 1134 1 12 0 1575 35 16 652 486 487 CR P35 COLLECTOR 954 1 12 0 1575 35 16 653 487 488 CR P35 COLLECTOR 1599 1 12 0 1575 35 16 654 488 308 CR P35 COLLECTOR 4920 1 12 0 1700 45 16 898 682 689 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1436 2 12 0 1900 50 16 899 683 679 INDUSTRIAL PARK DR COLLECTOR 2970 1 12 0 1575 35 16 900 683 687 CR P35 A COLLECTOR 2958 1 12 0 1575 35 16 901 684 675 CR P35 A COLLECTOR 866 1 12 0 1575 35 16 902 685 684 CR P35 A COLLECTOR 976 1 12 0 1575 35 16 903 686 685 CR P35 A COLLECTOR 1507 1 12 0 1575 35 16 904 687 686 CR P35 A COLLECTOR 596 1 12 0 1575 35 16 905 688 683 INDUSTRIAL PARK DR COLLECTOR 838 1 12 0 1575 35 16 906 689 83 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1155 2 12 0 1900 50 16 907 689 682 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1436 2 12 0 1900 50 16 908 690 689 S 1ST ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1221 1 12 0 1700 40 16 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K81 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 909 691 509 S 10TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 618 1 12 0 1575 35 16 910 692 511 N 16TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1303 1 12 0 1575 35 16 911 694 306 SOUTH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 882 1 12 0 1350 30 16 912 695 92 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1208 1 12 0 1700 45 12 913 695 93 US 30 MINOR ARTERIAL 1802 1 12 4 1700 45 12 914 696 695 E ST CLAIR ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1287 1 12 0 1350 30 12 915 697 616 E MICHIGAN ST LOCAL ROADWAY 750 1 12 0 1350 30 12 916 698 465 AMERICAN EAGLE LN LOCAL ROADWAY 1025 1 12 0 1350 30 22 917 699 464 CR P38 LOCAL ROADWAY 822 1 12 0 1350 30 22 918 700 5 I 29 FREEWAY 4335 2 12 6 2250 70 4 919 700 6 I 29 FREEWAY 2691 2 12 6 2250 70 4 920 701 622 W CANAL ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1632 1 12 0 1700 40 18 921 703 99 WILLOW RD LOCAL ROADWAY 2519 1 12 0 1700 40 12 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K82 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table K2. Nodes in the LinkNode Analysis Network which are Controlled X Y Grid Map Node Coordinate Coordinate Control Type Number (ft) (ft) 26 2763979 604863 TCPUncontrolled 24 72 2696071 646578 Actuated 16 73 2696059 647704 Stop 16 74 2695740 649093 Actuated 16 82 2698770 646712 PreTimed 16 94 2768873 658206 TCPUncontrolled 12 99 2758836 651911 Stop 18 118 2648189 688778 Stop 2 123 2673347 693802 Stop 3 127 2650098 642594 Stop 14 158 2694313 646584 Stop 15 200 2651402 611092 Stop 20 202 2663204 643184 TCPUncontrolled 15 211 2696163 645151 Actuated 16 212 2681941 620593 TCPActuated 15 219 2687789 626860 TCPUncontrolled 15 222 2687962 620522 Stop 21 223 2674750 612214 TCPUncontrolled 21 225 2671825 611358 TCPUncontrolled 21 229 2672752 607222 TCPUncontrolled 21 231 2673250 585441 Stop 26 238 2657269 584907 Stop 25 239 2663955 585055 Stop 26 241 2664341 579708 Stop 26 242 2662449 598230 Stop 20 259 2673408 580144 Stop 26 260 2674232 580109 Stop 26 261 2673855 569647 Stop 26 263 2694678 570617 Stop 26 264 2696312 570745 Stop 31 265 2694557 573091 Stop 26 270 2694152 581182 Stop 26 274 2695027 565377 Stop 31 275 2700258 565625 Stop 31 276 2700174 567102 Stop 31 277 2700578 560378 Actuated 31 278 2695307 560130 Actuated 31 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K83 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

X Y Grid Map Node Coordinate Coordinate Control Type Number (ft) (ft) 279 2705831 560541 Actuated 31 282 2716066 566295 Stop 32 284 2713507 566221 Stop 32 286 2716211 563664 Actuated 32 287 2716285 561034 Actuated 32 288 2710877 565223 Actuated 32 289 2710975 560815 Actuated 32 294 2719079 567292 Actuated 32 295 2719774 566550 Actuated 32 296 2716309 571706 Actuated 32 297 2718519 567966 Actuated 32 299 2720659 565851 Actuated 32 300 2720134 563879 Actuated 32 301 2720288 561292 Actuated 32 302 2719639 561258 Actuated 32 303 2718799 561174 Actuated 32 306 2698841 645250 Stop 16 308 2700296 641644 TCPActuated 16 309 2723271 566706 Actuated 32 310 2717175 571709 Stop 32 313 2711763 582032 Actuated 28 317 2731510 575003 Actuated 29 318 2731549 573947 Actuated 29 319 2731494 575524 Stop 29 323 2724575 570662 Stop 32 325 2731602 572370 Actuated 33 326 2736883 572578 Stop 33 333 2683558 585888 Stop 26 335 2689037 580936 Stop 26 336 2689298 575319 Stop 26 337 2689820 565152 Stop 26 338 2689498 570423 Stop 26 340 2724123 563869 Actuated 32 341 2725372 563174 Stop 32 342 2725837 562930 Actuated 32 343 2725953 563139 Stop 32 345 2726406 566776 Actuated 32 346 2724141 565114 Actuated 32 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K84 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

X Y Grid Map Node Coordinate Coordinate Control Type Number (ft) (ft) 347 2724129 562987 Actuated 32 348 2724245 561442 Actuated 32 351 2728288 561651 Actuated 33 352 2729560 560197 Actuated 33 357 2708006 571274 Stop 31 359 2728115 563850 Actuated 33 360 2732001 564028 Actuated 33 361 2731896 566479 Actuated 33 365 2737349 563400 Actuated 33 366 2737174 566085 Actuated 33 367 2732234 558555 Actuated 33 370 2732243 559235 Actuated 33 372 2732195 560188 Actuated 33 374 2729362 563909 Actuated 33 375 2729232 566920 Actuated 33 377 2731819 568466 Stop 33 381 2733823 565948 Actuated 33 385 2738558 566142 Actuated 33 386 2739953 565357 Actuated 33 387 2739966 563526 Stop 33 393 2740321 571542 Stop 33 395 2751310 561405 Actuated 34 397 2746565 563017 Actuated 34 398 2749302 561687 Actuated 34 400 2745242 563779 Actuated 34 402 2750125 569090 Actuated 34 405 2750539 562677 Actuated 34 407 2749696 570673 Actuated 34 408 2749028 573414 Actuated 30 409 2749200 572726 Actuated 34 414 2746493 572760 Stop 34 423 2747984 575808 Actuated 30 425 2749292 576493 Stop 30 428 2742024 584626 Stop 29 429 2741698 584427 Stop 29 430 2742251 584547 Stop 29 436 2747738 576907 Stop 30 437 2748463 581821 Stop 30 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K85 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

X Y Grid Map Node Coordinate Coordinate Control Type Number (ft) (ft) 442 2742784 575838 Actuated 30 443 2740172 576555 Stop 29 449 2743800 587497 Stop 30 456 2731151 582694 Actuated 29 457 2730691 593204 TCPUncontrolled 23 462 2710876 591621 TCPUncontrolled 22 464 2709115 600099 Stop 22 465 2705500 602794 Stop 22 466 2699784 612661 Stop 22 468 2728907 616756 Stop 23 475 2713270 615437 TCPUncontrolled 22 488 2700749 636766 TCPUncontrolled 16 492 2713406 635775 Stop 16 500 2737819 598360 Stop 23 502 2738143 593992 TCPUncontrolled 23 505 2697446 646659 PreTimed 16 506 2697488 645224 Stop 16 509 2700047 646740 PreTimed 16 511 2697441 647788 Stop 16 512 2694144 650174 Actuated 15 532 2752890 595891 Stop 23 533 2741839 593538 TCPUncontrolled 23 538 2752584 594307 TCPUncontrolled 23 541 2723384 708841 Stop 4 543 2741403 709694 TCPUncontrolled 5 547 2765328 705208 Stop 6 571 2762024 676392 Stop 12 578 2790536 687258 Actuated 7 581 2788543 684837 Stop 6 585 2730047 675861 Stop 11 605 2725289 650566 Stop 16 606 2742623 629761 TCPUncontrolled 17 611 2764509 633548 Stop 18 616 2763223 655395 Stop 12 618 2763248 654319 TCPActuated 12 621 2765123 654408 TCPActuated 12 622 2765163 652041 Stop 18 633 2772739 610160 Stop 24 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K86 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

X Y Grid Map Node Coordinate Coordinate Control Type Number (ft) (ft) 655 2776533 584165 Stop 35 673 2727313 650722 TCPActuated 17 675 2705966 638567 Stop 16 682 2704870 648427 Stop 16 689 2703788 647484 Stop 16 695 2767304 655948 Stop 12 700 2719400 710028 TCPUncontrolled 4 708 2697001 646639 PreTimed 16 711 2695078 637381 TCPUncontrolled 16 721 2750346 566651 Actuated 34 723 2750483 564671 Actuated 34 726 2750612 561372 Actuated 34 729 2750849 561828 Actuated 34 736 2741877 563902 Actuated 33 738 2730769 567215 Actuated 33 741 2735103 565946 Actuated 33 744 2735900 565966 Actuated 33 759 2724572 566369 PreTimed 32 764 2720350 565190 Actuated 32 768 2730617 559528 Actuated 33 772 2731960 564785 Actuated 33 773 2731917 565833 Actuated 33 776 2730592 563937 Actuated 33 779 2727005 563789 Actuated 33 781 2680907 619718 Stop 21 787 2736926 571292 Stop 33 788 2739689 570781 Stop 33 791 2739918 564872 Stop 33 793 2718459 561159 Actuated 32 797 2714189 560932 Actuated 32 801 2702868 560465 Actuated 31 807 2715548 576926 Stop 28 808 2713491 576791 Stop 28 818 2716122 565137 Stop 32 1

Coordinates are in the North American Datum of 1983 State Plane Nebraska Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station K87 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX L Sub Area Boundaries

L. SUB AREA BOUNDARIES Sub Area Boundary 1 on the north by and on a line with the southern boundary of the Blair city limits from the Missouri River west to 9th Street.

on the west by the eastern boundary of the Blair city limits south from Grant Street and 9th Street to Highway 75, south on Hwy 75 to County Road P35, south on P35 to County Road P28.

on the south from the intersection of County Road P35 and County Road P28 by and on a line with County Road P28 east to the DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge, following the southern boundary of DeSoto east to the Missouri River.

on the east by that stretch of the Missouri River from the southern boundary of the DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge north to the southern boundary of the Blair city limits.

2 on the north by and on a line with County Road P4 from the Missouri River west to County Road 29, County Road 29 south to County Road 8, County Road 8 west to Highway 75.

on the west from the intersection of County Road 8 and Highway 75 SSW to the intersection of County Road 14 and County Road 21, County Road 21 south to Highway 30.

on the south from the intersection of County Road 21 and Highway 30 north and northeast following Highway 30 to County Road P26, County Road P26 east to County Road P35, County Road P35 north to Highway 75, the eastern boundary of the Blair city limits to the intersection of Grant Street and 9th Street, by and on a line with the southern boundary of the Blair city limits east to the Missouri River.

on the east by the Missouri River from a line with the Blair city limits north to a line with County Road P4.

3 on the north by and on a line with County Road P28 from County Road 39 west to County Road P35, County Road P35 north to a line with County Road P26, by and on a line with County Road P26 west to Highway 30.

on the west from the intersection of County Road P26 and Highway 30 following Highway 30 SSW to County Road 21.

on the south from the intersection of Washington County Road 21 and Highway 30 SSE passing through the intersection of Washington County Road 38 and County Road 25 just north of the village of Washington, continuing SSE to the intersection of Washington County Road 29 and Dutch Hall Road (the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station L1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Washington/Douglas County Line), east on Dutch Hall Road to Washington County Road 39.

on the east from the intersection of Dutch Hall Road and County Road 39 north on County Road 39 to County Road P28.

4 on the north by the southern boundary of the DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge west from the Missouri River to a line with County Road P28, by and on a line with County Road P28 west to County Road 39.

on the west from the intersection of County Road 39 and County Road P28 south on County Road 39 to Dutch Hall Road (the Washington/Douglas County Line).

on the south from the intersection of County Road 39 and Dutch Hall Road by and on a line with Dutch Hall Road (the Washington County Line to the Missouri River) east to the Missouri River.

on the east by that stretch of the Missouri River from a line with Dutch Hall Road to the southern boundary of DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge.

5 on the north by the intersection of 72nd Street and Dutch Hall Road (the Washington/Douglas County Line) west to 156th Street.

on the west from the intersection of 156th Street and Dutch Hall Road, 156th Street south to Pawnee Road.

on the south from the intersection of 156th Street and Pawnee Road, Pawnee Road east to the intersection of 78th Street and Pawnee Road, 78th Street north to the Omaha Trace, then east to the intersection of Omaha Trace and 72nd Street.

on the east from the intersection of the Omaha Trace and 72nd Street north to Dutch Hall Road.

10 on the north by U.S. Highway 30 east from the Missouri River to Grover Avenue.

on the east by Grover Avenue south from U.S. Highway 30 to York Road (the Harrison/Pottawattamie County Line).

on the south from Grover Avenue west following York Road and the County Line to the Missouri River.

on the west from the County Line following the Missouri River north to U.S. Highway 30. This includes the DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge (NWR).

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station L2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

11 on the north by and on a line with 280th Street east from the Missouri River to Green Avenue.

on the east by 280th Street south on a line with Green and Grover Avenue to U.S. Highway 30.

on the south by U.S. Highway 30 from Grover Avenue west to the Missouri River.

on the west by the Missouri River from U.S. Highway 30 north to a line with 280th Street.

12 on the north on a line with 235th Street from the Missouri River east to Garland Avenue.

on the east by Garland Avenue from 235th Street south to 250th Street, east on 250th Street to Hamlin Avenue, south on Hamlin Avenue to 270th Street, east on 270th Street to Houston Avenue, south on Houston Avenue to 280th Street.

on the south by and on a line with 280th Street from Houston Avenue west to the Missouri River.

on the west by the Missouri River on a line with 280th Street north to a line with 235th Street.

13 on the north by 270th Street east from Houston Avenue to Loess Hills Trail.

on the east by Loess Hills Trail from 270th Street south to and including the entire City of Missouri Valley, continuing south along Loess Hills Trail to York Road.

on the south by the Harrison/Pottawattamie County Line and York Road from Loess Hills Trail west to Grover Avenue.

on the west by Grover Avenue north from York Road to and on a line with Green Avenue to 280th Street, east on 280th Street to Houston Avenue, north on Houston Avenue to 270th Street.

14 on the north by the Harrison/Pottawattamie County Line and York Road from the Missouri River east to Old Lincoln Highway.

on the east, by Old Lincoln Highway from York Road (the County Line) south to Whistle Lane, west on Whistle Lane to Interstate 29, south on Interstate 29 from Whistle Lane to Rosewood Road including the community of Loveland.

on the south by and on a line with Rosewood Road from Interstate 29 west to the Missouri River.

on the west by the Missouri River from a line with Rosewood Road north to the County Line. This includes Wilson Island State Park.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station L3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX M Evacuation Sensitivity Studies

M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES This appendix presents the results of a series of sensitivity analyses. These analyses are designed to identify the sensitivity of the ETE to changes in some base evacuation conditions.

M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times A sensitivity study was performed to determine whether changes in the estimated trip generation time have an effect on the ETE for the entire EPZ. Specifically, if the tail of the mobilization distribution were truncated (i.e., if those who responded most slowly to the Advisory to Evacuate, could be persuaded to respond much more rapidly), how would the ETE be affected? The case considered was Scenario 6, Region 3; a winter, midweek, midday, good weather evacuation of the entire EPZ. Table M1 presents the results of this study.

Table M1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study Trip Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Generation Period 90th Percentile 100th Percentile 2 Hours 15 Minutes 2:00 2:30 3 Hours 15 Minutes 2:05 3:25 4 Hours 15 Minutes (Base) 2:05 4:25 The results confirm the importance of accurately estimating the trip generation (mobilization) times. The ETE for the 100th percentile closely mirror the values for the time the last evacuation trip is generated. In contrast, the 90th percentile ETE is less sensitive to truncating the tail of the mobilization time distribution. As indicated in Section 7.3, traffic congestion within the EPZ clears at about 1:45 after the ATE, well before the completion of trip generation time. The results indicate that programs to educate the public and encourage them toward faster responses for a radiological emergency, translates into shorter ETE at the 100th percentile. The results also justify the guidance to employ the [stable] 90th percentile ETE for protective action decision making.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station M1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE of changes in the percentage of people who decide to relocate from the Shadow Region. The case considered was Scenario 6, Region 3; a winter, midweek, midday, good weather evacuation for the entire EPZ. The movement of people in the Shadow Region has the potential to impede vehicles evacuating from an Evacuation Region within the EPZ. Refer to Sections 3.2 and 7.1 for additional information on population within the shadow region.

Table M2 presents the evacuation time estimates for each of the cases considered. The results show that the ETE is not impacted by shadow evacuation from 0% to 20%. Tripling the shadow percentage also has no effect on ETE for the 90th and 100th percentiles. Note, the telephone survey results presented in Appendix F indicate that 10% of households would elect to evacuate if advised to shelter.

Table M2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study Evacuating Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Percent Shadow Shadow Evacuation Vehicles 90th Percentile 100th Percentile 0 0 2:05 4:25 10 3,376 2:05 4:25 20 (Base) 6,752 2:05 4:25 60 20,255 2:05 4:25 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station M2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

M.3 Effect of Changes in EPZ Resident Population A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE of increases in the resident population within the study area (EPZ plus Shadow Region). As population in the study area changes over time, the time required to evacuate the public may increase, decrease, or remain the same. Since the ETE is related to the demand to capacity ratio present within the study area, increases in population will cause the demand side of the equation to change. The sensitivity study was conducted using the following planning assumptions:

1. The percent change in population within the study area was increased by 100120%.

Changes in population were applied to permanent residents only (as per federal guidance), in both the EPZ area and in the Shadow Region.

2. The transportation infrastructure remained fixed; the presence of new roads or highway capacity improvements were not considered.

3. The study was performed for the 2Mile Region (R01), the 5Mile Region (R02) and the entire EPZ (R03).

4. The good weather scenario which yielded the highest ETE values was selected as the case to be considered in this sensitivity study (Scenario 6).

Table M3 presents the results of the sensitivity study.Section IV of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, and NUREG/CR7002, Section 5.4, require licensees to provide an updated ETE analysis to the NRC when a population increase within the EPZ causes ETE values (for the 2Mile Region, 5 Mile Region or entire EPZ) to increase by 25 percent or 30 minutes, whichever is less. Note that 30 minutes is the criterion for updating for cases where base ETE values are greater than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months . Twenty five percent of the 90th percentile ETE for the 2Mile region (1:20) is 20 minutes; this is less than 30 minutes and is therefore the criterion for updating for this case.

Those percent population changes which result in ETE changes greater than 30 minutes or 20 minutes for the 2mile region at the 90th percentile, are highlighted in red below - a 120%

increase in the EPZ population. Dominion will have to estimate the EPZ population on an annual basis. If the EPZ population increases by 120% or more, an updated ETE analysis will be needed.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station M3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table M3. ETE Variation with Population Change Population Change Resident Base Population 20,366 22,403 24,439 th ETE for 90 Percentile Population Change Region Base 100% 110% 120%

2-Mile 1:20 1:35 1:35 1:35 5-MILE 2:00 2:25 2:30 2:35 FULL EPZ 2:05 2:20 2:30 2:35 th ETE for 100 Percentile Population Change Region Base 100% 110% 120%

2-Mile 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:20 5-MILE 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 FULL EPZ 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station M4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX N ETE Criteria Checklist

N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST Table N1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis 1.0 Introduction

a. The emergency planning zone (EPZ) and surrounding area Yes Section 1 should be described.

b. A map should be included that identifies primary features Yes Figure 11 of the site, including major roadways, significant topographical features, boundaries of counties, and population centers within the EPZ.

c. A comparison of the current and previous ETE should be Yes Table 13 provided and includes similar information as identified in Table 11, ETE Comparison, of NUREG/CR7002.

1.1 Approach

a. A discussion of the approach and level of detail obtained Yes Section 1.3 during the field survey of the roadway network should be provided.

b. Sources of demographic data for schools, special facilities, Yes Section 2.1 large employers, and special events should be identified. Section 3

c. Discussion should be presented on use of traffic control Yes Section 1.3, Section 2.3, Section 9, plans in the analysis. Appendix G

d. Traffic simulation models used for the analyses should be Yes Section 1.3, Table 13, Appendix B, C and identified by name and version. D Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station N1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

e. Methods used to address data uncertainties should be Yes Section 3 - avoid double counting described. Section 5, Appendix F - 4.5% sampling error at 95% confidence interval for telephone survey 1.2 Assumptions

a. The planning basis for the ETE includes the assumption Yes Section 2.3 - Assumption 1 that the evacuation should be ordered promptly and no Section 5.1 early protective actions have been implemented.

b. Assumptions consistent with Table 12, General Yes Sections 2.2, 2.3 Assumptions, of NUREG/CR7002 should be provided and include the basis to support their use.

1.3 Scenario Development

a. The ten scenarios in Table 13, Evacuation Scenarios, Yes Tables 21, 64 should be developed for the ETE analysis, or a reason should be provided for use of other scenarios.

1.3.1 Staged Evacuation

a. A discussion should be provided on the approach used in Yes Sections 5.4.2, 7.2 development of a staged evacuation.

1.4 Evacuation Planning Areas

a. A map of EPZ with emergency response planning areas Yes Figure 61 (ERPAs) should be included.

b. A table should be provided identifying the ERPAs Yes Table 61 considered for each ETE calculation by downwind direction in each sector.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station N2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

c. A table similar to Table 14, Evacuation Areas for a Staged Yes Table 75 Evacuation Keyhole, of NUREG/CR7002 should be provided and includes the complete evacuation of the 2, 5, and 10 mile areas and for the 2 mile area/5 mile keyhole evacuations.

2.0 Demand Estimation

a. Demand estimation should be developed for the four Yes Permanent residents, employees, population groups, including permanent residents of the transients - Section 3, Appendix E EPZ, transients, special facilities, and schools. Special facilities, schools - Section 8, Appendix E 2.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population

a. The US Census should be the source of the population Yes Section 3.1 values, or another credible source should be provided.

b. Population values should be adjusted as necessary for Yes 2010 used as the base year for analysis. No growth to reflect population estimates to the year of the growth of population necessary.

ETE.

c. A sector diagram should be included, similar to Figure 21, Yes Figure 32 Population by Sector, of NUREG/CR7002, showing the population distribution for permanent residents.

2.1.1 Permanent Residents with Vehicles

a. The persons per vehicle value should be between 1 and 2 Yes 1.86 persons per vehicle - Table 13 or justification should be provided for other values.

b. Major employers should be listed. Yes Appendix E - Table E3 2.1.2 Transient Population Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station N3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

a. A list of facilities which attract transient populations Yes Sections 3.3, 3.4, Appendix E should be included, and peak and average attendance for these facilities should be listed. The source of information used to develop attendance values should be provided.

b. The average population during the season should be used, Yes Tables 34, 35 and Appendix E itemize the itemized and totaled for each scenario. transient population and employee estimates. These estimates are multiplied by the scenario specific percentages provided in Table 65 to estimate transient population by scenario.

c. The percent of permanent residents assumed to be at Yes Sections 3.3, 3.4 facilities should be estimated.

d. The number of people per vehicle should be provided. Yes Sections 3.3, 3.4 Numbers may vary by scenario, and if so, discussion on why values vary should be provided.

e. A sector diagram should be included, similar to Figure 21 Yes Figure 36 - transients of NUREG/CR7002, showing the population distribution Figure 38 - employees for the transient population.

2.2 Transit Dependent Permanent Residents

a. The methodology used to determine the number of transit Yes Section 8.1, Table 81 dependent residents should be discussed.

b. Transportation resources needed to evacuate this group Yes Section 8.1, Tables 85, 810 should be quantified.

c. The county/local evacuation plans for transit dependent Yes Sections 8.1, 8.4, 8.5 residents should be used in the analysis. Table 86 Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station N4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

d. The methodology used to determine the number of Yes Section 8.5 people with disabilities and those with access and functional needs who may need assistance and do not reside in special facilities should be provided. Data from local/county registration programs should be used in the estimate, but should not be the only set of data.

e. Capacities should be provided for all types of Yes Section 2.3 - Assumption 10 transportation resources. Bus seating capacity of 50% Sections 3.5, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 should be used or justification should be provided for higher values.

f. An estimate of this population should be provided and Yes Table 81 - transit dependents information should be provided that the existing Sections 81, 8.4 registration programs were used in developing the estimate.

g. A summary table of the total number of buses, Yes Section 8.3, 8.4 ambulances, or other transport needed to support Table 85 evacuation should be provided and the quantification of resources should be detailed enough to assure double counting has not occurred.

2.3 Special Facility Residents

a. A list of special facilities, including the type of facility, Yes Appendix E, Tables E2, E6 - list facilities, location, and average population should be provided. type, location, and population Special facility staff should be included in the total special facility population.

b. A discussion should be provided on how special facility Yes Sections 3.5, 8.3 data was obtained.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station N5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

c. The number of wheelchair and bedbound individuals Yes Section 3.5 should be provided.

d. An estimate of the number and capacity of vehicles Yes Section 8.3 needed to support the evacuation of the facility should be Tables 84 provided.

e. The logistics for mobilizing specially trained staff (e.g., Yes Section 8.4, page 89 medical support or security support for prisons, jails, and other correctional facilities) should be discussed when appropriate.

2.4 Schools

a. A list of schools including name, location, student Yes Table 82, E1 population, and transportation resources required to Section 8.2 support the evacuation, should be provided. The source of this information should be provided.

b. Transportation resources for elementary and middle Yes Table 82 schools should be based on 100% of the school capacity.

c. The estimate of high school students who will use their Yes Section 8.2 personal vehicle to evacuate should be provided and a basis for the values used should be discussed.

d. The need for return trips should be identified if necessary. Yes There are not sufficient resources to evacuate schools in a single wave. Section 8.3 and Figure 81 discuss a multiple wave evacuation Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station N6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis 2.5.1 Special Events

a. A complete list of special events should be provided and Yes Section 3.7 includes information on the population, estimated duration, and season of the event.

b. The special event that encompasses the peak transient Yes Section 3.7 population should be analyzed in the ETE.

c. The percent of permanent residents attending the event Yes Section 3.7 should be estimated.

2.5.2 Shadow Evacuation

a. A shadow evacuation of 20 percent should be included for Yes Section 2.2 - Assumption 5 areas outside the evacuation area extending to 15 miles Figure 21 from the NPP.

Section 3.2

b. Population estimates for the shadow evacuation in the 10 Yes Section 3.2 to 15 mile area beyond the EPZ are provided by sector. Figure 34 Table 33

c. The loading of the shadow evacuation onto the roadway Yes Section 5 - Table 59 footnote network should be consistent with the trip generation time generated for the permanent resident population.

2.5.3 Background and Pass Through Traffic Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station N7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

a. The volume of background traffic and pass through traffic Yes Section 3.6 is based on the average daytime traffic. Values may be Table 36 reduced for nighttime scenarios.

Section 6 Table 65, 66

b. Pass through traffic is assumed to have stopped entering Yes Section 2.3 - Assumption 5 the EPZ about two hours after the initial notification. Section 3.6 2.6 Summary of Demand Estimation

a. A summary table should be provided that identifies the Yes total populations and total vehicles used in analysis for Section 3.8 permanent residents, transients, transit dependent Tables 37, 38 residents, special facilities, schools, shadow population, and passthrough demand used in each scenario.

3.0 Roadway Capacity

a. The method(s) used to assess roadway capacity should be Yes Section 4 discussed.

3.1 Roadway Characteristics

a. A field survey of key routes within the EPZ has been Yes Section 1.3 conducted.

b. Information should be provided describing the extent of Yes Section 1.3 the survey, and types of information gathered and used in the analysis.

c. A table similar to that in Appendix A, Roadway Yes Appendix K, Table K1 Characteristics, of NUREG/CR7002 should be provided.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station N8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

d. Calculations for a representative roadway segment should Yes Section 4 be provided.

e. A legible map of the roadway system that identifies node Yes Appendix K, Figures K1 through K33 numbers and segments used to develop the ETE should be present the entire linknode analysis provided and should be similar to Figure 31, Roadway network at a scale suitable to identify all Network Identifying Nodes and Segments, of NUREG/CR links and nodes 7002.

3.2 Capacity Analysis

a. The approach used to calculate the roadway capacity for Yes Section 4 the transportation network should be described in detail and identifies factors that should be expressly used in the modeling.

b. The capacity analysis identifies where field information Yes Section 1.3, Section 4 should be used in the ETE calculation.

3.3 Intersection Control

a. A list of intersections should be provided that includes the Yes Appendix K, Table K2 total number of intersections modeled that are unsignalized, signalized, or manned by response personnel.

b. Characteristics for the 10 highest volume intersections Yes Table J1 within the EPZ are provided including the location, signal cycle length, and turn lane queue capacity.

c. Discussion should be provided on how signal cycle time is Yes Section 4.1, Appendix C.

used in the calculations.

3.4 Adverse Weather Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station N9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

a. The adverse weather condition should be identified and Yes Table 21, Section 2.3 - Assumption 9 the effects of adverse weather on mobilization time Mobilization time - Table 22, Section 5.3 should be considered. (page 510)

b. The speed and capacity reduction factors identified in Yes Table 22 - based on HCM 2010. The Table 31, Weather Capacity Factors, of NUREG/CR7002 factors provided in Table 31 of should be used or a basis should be provided for other NUREG/CR7002 are from HCM 2000.

values.

c. The study identifies assumptions for snow removal on Yes Section 2.3 - Assumption 9 streets and driveways, when applicable. Section 5.3 - page 510 Appendix F - Section F.3.3 4.0 Development of Evacuation Times 4.1 Trip Generation Time

a. The process used to develop trip generation times should Yes Section 5 be identified.

b. When telephone surveys are used, the scope of the Yes Appendix F survey, area of survey, number of participants, and statistical relevance should be provided.

c. Data obtained from telephone surveys should be Yes Appendix F summarized.

d. The trip generation time for each population group should Yes Section 5, Appendix F be developed from site specific information.

4.1.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station N10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

a. Permanent residents are assumed to evacuate from their Yes Section 5 discusses trip generation for homes but are not assumed to be at home at all times. households with and without returning Trip generation time includes the assumption that a commuters. Table 65 presents the percentage of residents will need to return home prior to percentage of households with returning evacuating. commuters and the percentage of households either without returning commuters or with no commuters.

Appendix F presents the percent of households who will await the return of commuters.

b. Discussion should be provided on the time and method Yes Section 5.4.3 used to notify transients. The trip generation time discusses any difficulties notifying persons in hard to reach areas such as on lakes or in campgrounds.

c. The trip generation time accounts for transients Yes Section 5, Figure 51 potentially returning to hotels prior to evacuating.

d. Effect of public transportation resources used during Yes Section 3.7 special events where a large number of transients should be expected should be considered.

e. The trip generation time for the transient population Yes Section 5, Table 59, Figure 54 should be integrated and loaded onto the transportation network with the general public.

4.1.2 Transit Dependent Residents Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station N11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

a. If available, existing plans and bus routes should be used Yes Section 8.4, Table 86 in the ETE analysis. If new plans should be developed with the ETE, they have been agreed upon by the responsible authorities.

b. Discussion should be included on the means of evacuating Yes Section 8.4, 8.5 ambulatory and nonambulatory residents.

c. The number, location, and availability of buses, and other Yes Section 8.4 resources needed to support the demand estimation Table 85 should be provided.

d. Logistical details, such as the time to obtain buses, brief Yes Section 8.4, 8.5, 8.6 drivers, and initiate the bus route should be provided. Figure 81

e. Discussion should identify the time estimated for transit Yes Section 8.4,8.5 dependent residents to prepare and travel to a bus pickup point, and describes the expected means of travel to the pickup point.

f. The number of bus stops and time needed to load Yes Section 8.4, 8.5 passengers should be discussed.

g. A map of bus routes should be included. Yes Figure 82

h. The trip generation time for nonambulatory persons Yes Section 8.5 includes the time to mobilize ambulances or special vehicles, time to drive to the home of residents, loading time, and time to drive out of the EPZ should be provided.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station N12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

i. Information should be provided to supports analysis of Yes Sections 8.4 return trips, if necessary. Figure 81 Tables 811 through 813 4.1.3 Special Facilities

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization times Yes Section 8.3, 8.4, 8.6, Tables 84, 814 should be provided. through 816,Table 817

b. Discussion should be provided on the inbound and Yes Sections 8.4 8.6 outbound speeds.

c. The number of wheelchair and bedbound individuals Yes Section 8.3 should be provided, and the logistics of evacuating these Tables 84, 814, 815, 816 residents should be discussed.

d. Time for loading of residents should be provided Yes Section 8.4, 8.6

e. Information should be provided that indicates whether Yes Section 8.4, Table 84, 85 the evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips should be needed.

f. If return trips should be needed, the destination of Yes Section 8.4 vehicles should be provided. Figure 101

g. Discussion should be provided on whether special facility Yes Section 8.4 residents are expected to pass through the reception center prior to being evacuated to their final destination.

h. Supporting information should be provided to quantify the Yes Section 8.4.

time elements for the return trips.

4.1.4 Schools Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station N13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization time Yes Section 8.4 should be provided. Table 87, 88, 89

b. Discussion should be provided on the inbound and Yes School bus routes are presented in Table outbound speeds. 86.

School bus speeds are presented in Tables 87 (good weather), 88 (rain) and 89 (snow). Outbound speeds are defined as the minimum of the evacuation route speed and the State school bus speed limit.

Inbound speeds are limited to the State school bus speed limit.

c. Time for loading of students should be provided. Yes Tables 87 through 89, Discussion in Section 8.4

d. Information should be provided that indicates whether Yes Section 8.4 - page 88 the evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if Table 85 additional trips are needed.

e. If return trips are needed, the destination of school buses Yes Table 83 should be provided.

f. If used, reception centers should be identified. Discussion Yes Table 83. Students are evacuated to should be provided on whether students are expected to registration center/host school where they pass through the reception center prior to being will be picked up by parents or guardians.

evacuated to their final destination.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station N14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

g. Supporting information should be provided to quantify the Yes Tables 87 through 89 provide time time elements for the return trips. needed to arrive at registration center, which could be used to compute a second wave evacuation if necessary. Tables 811 through 813. Discussion in Section 8.4, 8.5 4.2 ETE Modeling

a. General information about the model should be provided Yes DYNEV II (Ver. 4.0.11.0). Section 1.3, Table and demonstrates its use in ETE studies. 13, Appendix B, Appendix C.

b. If a traffic simulation model is not used to conduct the ETE No Not applicable as a traffic simulation calculation, sufficient detail should be provided to validate model was used.

the analytical approach used. All criteria elements should have been met, as appropriate.

4.2.1 Traffic Simulation Model Input

a. Traffic simulation model assumptions and a representative Yes Appendices B and C describe the set of model inputs should be provided. simulation model assumptions and algorithms Table J2

b. A glossary of terms should be provided for the key Yes Appendix A performance measures and parameters used in the Tables C1, C2 analysis.

4.2.2 Traffic Simulation Model Output Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station N15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

a. A discussion regarding whether the traffic simulation Yes Appendix B model used must be in equilibration prior to calculating the ETE should be provided.

b. The minimum following model outputs should be provided Yes 1. Table J5.

to support review: 2. Table J3.

1. Total volume and percent by hour at each EPZ exit 3. Table J1.

node. 4. Table J3.

2. Network wide average travel time. 5. Figures J1 through J14 (one plot

3. Longest queue length for the 10 intersections with the for each scenario considered).

highest traffic volume. 6. Table J4. Network wide average

4. Total vehicles exiting the network. speed also provided in Table J3.

5. A plot that provides both the mobilization curve and evacuation curve identifying the cumulative percentage of evacuees who have mobilized and exited the EPZ.

6. Average speed for each major evacuation route that exits the EPZ.

c. Color coded roadway maps should be provided for various Yes Figures 73 through 76 times (i.e., at 2, 4, 6 hrs., etc.) during a full EPZ evacuation scenario, identifying areas where long queues exist including level of service (LOS) E and LOS F conditions, if they occur.

4.3 Evacuation Time Estimates for the General Public

a. The ETE should include the time to evacuate 90% and Yes Tables 71, 72 100% of the total permanent resident and transient population Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station N16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

b. The ETE for 100% of the general public should include all Yes Section 5.4 - truncating survey data to members of the general public. Any reductions or eliminate statistical outliers truncated data should be explained. Table 72 - 100th percentile ETE for general public

c. Tables should be provided for the 90 and 100 percent ETEs Yes Tables 73, 74 similar to Table 43, ETEs for Staged Evacuation Keyhole, of NUREG/CR7002.

d. ETEs should be provided for the 100 percent evacuation of Yes Section 8.4, 8.5, 8.6 special facilities, transit dependent, and school Tables 87 through 89 populations.

Tables 811 through 817 5.0 Other Considerations 5.1 Development of Traffic Control Plans

a. Information that responsible authorities have approved Yes Section 9, Appendix G the traffic control plan used in the analysis should be provided.

b. A discussion of adjustments or additions to the traffic Yes Appendix G control plan that affect the ETE should be provided.

5.2 Enhancements in Evacuation Time

a. The results of assessments for improvement of evacuation Yes Section 13, Appendix M time should be provided.

b. A statement or discussion regarding presentation of Yes Results of the ETE study were formally enhancements to local authorities should be provided. presented to local authorities at the final project meeting. Recommended enhancements were discussed.

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station N17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis 5.3 State and Local Review

a. A list of agencies contacted and the extent of interaction Yes Table 11 with these agencies should be discussed.

b. Information should be provided on any unresolved issues Yes There are no outstanding issues. All issues that may affect the ETE. were addressed at the project kickoff and final meetings.

5.4 Reviews and Updates

a. A discussion of when an updated ETE analysis is required Yes Appendix M, Section M.3 to be performed and submitted to the NRC.

5.5 Reception Centers and Congregate Care Center

a. A map of congregate care centers and reception centers Yes Figure 101 should be provided.

b. If return trips are required, assumptions used to estimate Yes Section 8 discusses multiwave evacuation return times for buses should be provided. procedures. Figure 81

c. It should be clearly stated if it is assumed that passengers Yes Section 2.3 - Assumption 7h are left at the reception center and are taken by separate Section 10 buses to the congregate care center.

Technical Reviewer _______________________________ Date _________________________

Supervisory Review _______________________________ Date _________________________

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station N18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

LIC-12-0185, Kld TR-535, Final Report, Rev. 1, Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station Development of Evacuation Time Estimates.

Text

SUMMARY

Reference:

Navigation menu

Search